[PATCH] wifi: ath11k: Optimize 6 GHz scan time

Manikanta Pubbisetty quic_mpubbise at quicinc.com
Fri Feb 24 02:08:23 PST 2023


On 1/10/2023 10:35 PM, James Prestwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 10:49 +0530, Manikanta Pubbisetty wrote:
>> On 12/29/2022 2:52 AM, James Prestwood wrote:
>>> Hi Manikanta,
>>>> By the way, userspace itself selects the frequencies to scan, not
>>>> the
>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> If we see the split scan implementation in cfg80211, this is the
>>>> how
>>>> it
>>>> is implemented. If NL80211_SCAN_FLAG_COLOCATED_6GHZ is set, it
>>>> selects
>>>> all PSC channels and those non-PSC channels where RNR IE
>>>> information
>>>> is
>>>> found in the legacy scan results. If this flag is not set, all
>>>> channels
>>>> in 6 GHz are included in the scan freq list. It is upto userspace
>>>> to
>>>> decide what it wants.
>>>
>>>
>>> This isn't your problem, but it needs to be said:
>>>
>>> The nl80211 docs need and update to reflect this behavior (or
>>> remove
>>> the PSC logic). IMO this is really weird that the kernel selects
>>> PSC's
>>> based on the co-located flag. The docs don't describe this behavior
>>> and
>>> the flag's name is misleading (its not
>>> SCAN_FLAG_COLOCATED_AND_PSC_6GHZ) :)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation.
>>
>> What you said make sense. The existing flag should not add PSC
>> channels
>> according to the flag description.
>>
>> We can add another flag something like you pointed out
>> SCAN_FLAG_COLOCATED_AND_PSC_6GHZ and include PSC channels if this
>> flag
>> is set. What do you say?
> 
> I'm no authority here, just wanted to point this out. This is something
> that would need to be in mac80211 though, not just a specific driver.
> It would be up to the maintainers and would require changing the
> behavior of the existing flag, which then changes behavior in
> wpa_supplicant/hostapd. So its somewhat intrusive.
> 
> But personally I'd be for it. And just require userspace include PSC's
> like any other channels if they need those.
> 

Hi Johannes,

What is your opinion on the changes being proposed to the 6 GHz scan in 
cfg80211 that is being discussed in this thread?

Thanks,
Manikanta




More information about the ath11k mailing list