[PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits

Johannes Berg johannes at sipsolutions.net
Thu Jul 30 09:24:11 EDT 2020

On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 12:26 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:

> > > So to me it feels like the best solution forward is to go with the
> > > vendor API, do you agree? We can, of course, later switch to the common
> > > API if we manage to create one which is usable for everyone.

But why wouldn't we try that now, while we have it all in our heads (in
a way ... even if this discussion drags out forever)?

I mean, the range-based approach ought to work, and if we define it as a
nested attribute list or so, we can even later add more attributes to it
(chain limits, whatnot) without any backward compatibility concerns.

So what is it that we _cannot_ do in a more common way today?

> > I think we've had some healthy (though very protracted) discussion,
> > and I don't think I've seen anyone bring up anything I wasn't already
> > aware of that would prevent eventual consolidation. As long as we
> > acknowledge those things (item 2 at
> > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api),
> > I'm happy.
> Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page.

But are we? ;-)

I don't really see anything in the new proposal [1] that really explains
why the common API that we've sort of vaguely outlined in this thread
couldn't work? It just speaks of technical difficulties ("need a
reporting API too"), but should we let that stop us?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11686317/


More information about the ath10k mailing list