[PATCH v3] wifi: ath11k: move .max_tx_ring to struct ath11k_hw_hal_params

[Jeff Johnson]

On 1/14/2026 1:29 PM, Alex G. wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:24:19 AM CST Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On 1/12/2026 11:00 PM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>>> On 12/28/2025 8:44 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>> ".max_tx_ring" is an upper bounds to indexing ".tcl2wbm_rbm_map". It
>>>> is initialized in, core.c, a different file than the array. This
>>>> spaghetti-like relation is fragile and not obvious. Accidentally
>>>> setting ".max_tx_ring" too high leads to a hard to track out-of-
>>>> bounds access and memory corruption.
>>>>
>>>> There is a small ambiguity on the meaning of "max_tx_ring":
>>>>   - The highest ring, max=3 implies there are 4 rings (0, 1, 2, 3)
>>>>   - The highest number to use for array indexing (there are 3 rings)
>>>>
>>>> Clarify this dependency by moving ".max_tx_ring" adjacent to the array
>>>> ".tcl2wbm_rbm_map", and name it "num_tx_rings". Use ARRAY_SIZE()
>>>> instead of #defines to initialize the length field.
>>>>
>>>> The ath11k_hw_hal_params_qca6390 uses fewer num_tx_rings than its map,
>>>> so use a constant to express the correct value. Add a static_assert()
>>>> to fail compilation if the constant is accidentally set too high.
>>>
>>> Text related to static_assert to be removed accordingly.
>>
> Hi Jeff,
> 
>> I removed the last sentence in 'pending', please check:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ath/ath.git/commit/?h=pendin
>> g&id=26bb149b5e011b0f73f7b74421589cbd38e3304b
> 
> Re-reading the commit message, I think it makes sense to also remove the 
> sentence "The ath11k_hw_hal_params_qca6390 uses fewer num_tx_rings than its 
> map, so use a constant to express the correct value.". Do you think it's worth 
> submitting a v4 with this minor change?
> 
> Alex

No need to submit a v4. I can make that change in 'pending'

/jeff