RE: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Hi Gregg,

(no top posting for wireless mailing list, so I move your post to bottom)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Wonderly <greggwonderly@seqtechllc.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:15 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21
> 
> > On Apr 24, 2023, at 9:41 PM, Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:54 PM
> >> To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21
> >>
> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 10:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Kalle Valo wrote:
> >>> .../net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8851b_table.c    | 14824 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> .../net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8851b_table.h    |    21 +
> >>
> >> We should load these like FW, see the proposal outlined in
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221116222339.54052a83@kernel.org/
> >> for example. Would that not work?
> >>
> >
> > That would work, and I think struct fields addr and val should be __le32.
> > And, I have some draft ideas to handle some situations we will face:
> >
> > 1. upgrading to newer driver without built-in tables will break user space
> >   if people don't download table file from linux-firmware.git.
> >   Maybe, we can keep the built-in tables and support loading from files
> >   for couple years at least.
> >
> > 2. c code can do changes along with these tables, so driver should do some
> >   compatibility things for register version.
> >
> > 3. The file contains not only simple registers tables but also TX power tables
> >   and power tracking tables. These tables are multiple dimensions, and
> >   dimensions can be changed due to more channels are supported, for example.
> >   To be backward compatible, we need to add conversion function from
> >   v1, v2 ... to current.
> >
> > I will think further to make this change smooth.
> >
> 
> Could this be expressed in a /proc structure of files and directories?
> 

I'm not clear what you meant. Could you please give me an example for reference?

Ping-Ke