[PATCH v2 1/3] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations.

[Brian Norris]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:53 AM Carl Huang <cjhuang at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> NL80211_CMD_SET_SAR_SPECS is added to configure SAR from
> user space. NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC is used to pass the SAR
> power specification when used with NL80211_CMD_SET_SAR_SPECS.
>
> Wireless driver needs to register SAR type, supported frequency
> ranges to wiphy, so user space can query it. The index in
> frequency range is used to specify which sub band the power
> limitation applies to. The SAR type is for compatibility, so later
> other SAR mechanism can be implemented without breaking the user
> space SAR applications.
>
> Normal process is user space quries the SAR capability, and
> gets the index of supported frequency ranges and associates the
> power limitation with this index and sends to kernel.
>
> Here is an example of message send to kernel:
> 8c 00 00 00 08 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 38 00 2b 81
> 08 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 2c 00 02 80 14 00 00 80
> 08 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 08 00 01 00 38 00 00 00
> 14 00 01 80 08 00 02 00 01 00 00 00 08 00 01 00
> 48 00 00 00
>
> NL80211_CMD_SET_SAR_SPECS:  0x8c
> NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY:     0x01(phy idx is 0)
> NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC:  0x812b (NLA_NESTED)
> NL80211_SAR_ATTR_TYPE:  0x00 (NL80211_SAR_TYPE_POWER)
> NL80211_SAR_ATTR_SPECS: 0x8002 (NLA_NESTED)
> freq range 0 power: 0x38 in 0.25dbm unit (14dbm)
> freq range 1 power: 0x48 in 0.25dbm unit (18dbm)
>
> Signed-off-by: Carl Huang <cjhuang at codeaurora.org>

I think the API is reasonably clear and usable. I'm a little skeptical
that the complexity related to indexes is absolutely necessary [1],
but at least you make clear what should happen in the case of missing
indexes (treated as "max"). But you've addressed my concerns, I think:

Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org>

I haven't done the most thorough review on the implementation pieces
(and ath10k), but I at least wanted to put my thoughts out there.

Thanks,
Brian

[1] By the way, you aren't checking for duplicates; so users could
pass the same index many times, and it's not clear from the API
definition what should happen. It seems the current implementation is
that you'll just use the last value provided.