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

Kalle Valo kvalo at codeaurora.org
Tue Sep 8 01:55:01 EDT 2020

Johannes Berg <johannes at sipsolutions.net> writes:

> 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/

I misunderstood then, I thought everyone were leaning towards the vendor
API approach. But yeah, of course a common API is much better if people
think it's doable.

So I'll now drop all the vendor API patches from patchwork and
assume/hope that we will get the common API at some point.


More information about the ath10k mailing list