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

[Carl Huang]

On 2020-11-21 10:42, Brian Norris wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the comments.
It's right the last value is used.
I can describe it more clearly if V3 is needed.