From: Baochen Qiang <baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Matthew Leach <matthew.leach@collabora.com>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@kernel.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath11k: workaround firmware bug where peer_id=0
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:16:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b71bca62-e467-4c88-a6e5-c44f13d48b4d@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a4v54s88.fsf@collabora.com>
On 4/14/2026 8:54 PM, Matthew Leach wrote:
> Hi Baochen,
>
> Baochen Qiang <baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/30/2026 3:57 PM, Matthew Leach wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Matthew Leach <matthew.leach@collabora.com> writes:
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>> for chips like QCA2066 and WCN6855 etc 0 is a valid value, however
>> this is not for chips like QCN9074 etc.
>>
>> so a possible fix would be to add hardware ops based on chips: for
>> QCN9074 we keep the existing validation on 0 in the ops, while for
>> QCA2066 the ops is a null func. Or even simper we can remove the
>> validation for all chips.
>
> In that case, does it make sense to remove the condition check
>
> if (rxcb->peer_id)
>
> in ath11k_dp_rx_h_find_peer()? It looks like this has been used as a
> small optimisation, where if peer_id isn't valid it skips checking for
> it in the peer hash table. However, if on newer chips peer_id=0 is
> valid, we should remove this?
yeah, I think so. This check was also based on the non-zero peer id assumption.
>
> Regards,
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-15 3:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-26 10:53 [PATCH] ath11k: workaround firmware bug where peer_id=0 Matthew Leach
2026-03-30 7:57 ` Matthew Leach
2026-04-14 7:06 ` Baochen Qiang
2026-04-14 12:54 ` Matthew Leach
2026-04-15 3:16 ` Baochen Qiang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b71bca62-e467-4c88-a6e5-c44f13d48b4d@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=ath11k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=jjohnson@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.leach@collabora.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox