[PATCH 2/2] ath10k: DFS Host Confirmation

Kalle Valo kvalo at codeaurora.org
Mon May 14 22:04:37 PDT 2018

Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> writes:

> On Mon, 14 May 2018 at 11:25, Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> writes:
>> > May we have a little more information about how this is supposed to
> work?
>> >
>> > It looks like we're supposed to send the information about the matched
>> > radar pattern back to the firmware for confirmation? What's the intended
>> > behaviour from the firmware? Will the firmware have a hard-coded set of
>> > patterns we have to answer in/by?
>> That's really an implementation detail inside the firmware and from
>> ath10k point of view we don't care what checks the firmware has, we just
>> provide all the necessary information. The checks in firmware might even
>> change in later releases.
>> > I ask (like Peter, we work together) because we've had to tweak this
>> > behaviour a little to actually pass FCC / ETSI DFS certification. My
>> > general concern is that this'll cause a lot of false detects on boards
> that
>> > haven't had things tweaked for the given board. As far as I'm aware the
>> > parameters are still hard-coded into the firmware image so if you have
> to
>> > change those you're SOL without the relevant NDAs - this makes running
> the
>> > open source DFS stuff a little tricksy on vendor boards.
>> This shouldn't cause more false detections, the pattern detection from
>> ath.ko is still used as before. The firmware will just disable DFS
>> altogether if it thinks ath10k is not compliant.
> Heh, well the fun one for production for us is "ok, so what's
> non-compliant" ?
> Eg - if it's 1 out of 100 that we don't hit the explicit timing
> requirements because of the rest of the linux kernel (eg someone holds a
> spinlock more than they should) then I'd prefer that we got a notification
> that something happened so we can fix it. Otherwise in the field it'll just
> be "hey, our stuff stopped working" because whatever the firmware
> expectations are aren't being met.
> Again, we're OK because we can at least inspect what's going on, but not
> everyone doing ath10k development/deployment will be so lucky :(

Sure, every software change can cause regressions. But the thing is that
this isn't an optional, ath10k has to have this to be able to continue
using DFS channels.

Kalle Valo

More information about the ath10k mailing list