From: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted
smoothly in long range environment.
Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate
in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame.
obtain current setting
cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
force lowest rate:
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/debug.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.h | 1 +
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/tx.c | 3 +-
3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/debug.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/debug.c
index 18ab472ea46c..a99a3dc6f9f9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/debug.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/debug.c
@@ -861,6 +861,39 @@ static int rtw_debugfs_get_fw_crash(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
return 0;
}
+static ssize_t rtw_debugfs_set_basic_rates(struct file *filp,
+ const char __user *buffer,
+ size_t count, loff_t *loff)
+{
+ struct seq_file *seqpriv = (struct seq_file *)filp->private_data;
+ struct rtw_debugfs_priv *debugfs_priv = seqpriv->private;
+ struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = debugfs_priv->rtwdev;
+ bool input;
+ int err;
+
+ err = kstrtobool_from_user(buffer, count, &input);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ if (input)
+ set_bit(RTW_FLAG_USE_LOWEST_RATE, rtwdev->flags);
+ else
+ clear_bit(RTW_FLAG_USE_LOWEST_RATE, rtwdev->flags);
+
+ return count;
+}
+
+static int rtw_debugfs_get_basic_rates(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
+{
+ struct rtw_debugfs_priv *debugfs_priv = m->private;
+ struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = debugfs_priv->rtwdev;
+
+ seq_printf(m, "use lowest: %d\n",
+ test_bit(RTW_FLAG_USE_LOWEST_RATE, rtwdev->flags));
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static ssize_t rtw_debugfs_set_dm_cap(struct file *filp,
const char __user *buffer,
size_t count, loff_t *loff)
@@ -1046,6 +1079,11 @@ static struct rtw_debugfs_priv rtw_debug_priv_fw_crash = {
.cb_read = rtw_debugfs_get_fw_crash,
};
+static struct rtw_debugfs_priv rtw_debug_priv_basic_rates = {
+ .cb_write = rtw_debugfs_set_basic_rates,
+ .cb_read = rtw_debugfs_get_basic_rates,
+};
+
static struct rtw_debugfs_priv rtw_debug_priv_dm_cap = {
.cb_write = rtw_debugfs_set_dm_cap,
.cb_read = rtw_debugfs_get_dm_cap,
@@ -1125,6 +1163,7 @@ void rtw_debugfs_init(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
rtw_debugfs_add_r(rf_dump);
rtw_debugfs_add_r(tx_pwr_tbl);
rtw_debugfs_add_rw(fw_crash);
+ rtw_debugfs_add_rw(basic_rates);
rtw_debugfs_add_rw(dm_cap);
}
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.h b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.h
index dc3744847ba9..0df5df3a62ab 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.h
@@ -362,6 +362,7 @@ enum rtw_flags {
RTW_FLAG_BUSY_TRAFFIC,
RTW_FLAG_WOWLAN,
RTW_FLAG_RESTARTING,
+ RTW_FLAG_USE_LOWEST_RATE,
NUM_OF_RTW_FLAGS,
};
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/tx.c
index e5949a775283..0aeed15736c8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/tx.c
@@ -238,8 +238,9 @@ static u8 rtw_get_mgmt_rate(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct sk_buff *skb,
{
struct ieee80211_tx_info *tx_info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb);
struct ieee80211_vif *vif = tx_info->control.vif;
+ bool use_lowest = test_bit(RTW_FLAG_USE_LOWEST_RATE, rtwdev->flags);
- if (!vif || !vif->bss_conf.basic_rates || ignore_rate)
+ if (!vif || !vif->bss_conf.basic_rates || ignore_rate || use_lowest)
return lowest_rate;
return __ffs(vif->bss_conf.basic_rates) + lowest_rate;
--
2.21.0
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> From: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
>
> The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted
> smoothly in long range environment.
> Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate
> in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame.
>
> obtain current setting
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>
> force lowest rate:
> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]>
I believe some initial objection to this was because it was unclear if
this is for "production" use (e.g., recommending distros to play with
this) or for debugging. I'll admit, I requested the feature for patch 1,
because I've seen that for those networks where people *do* configure
odd Basic Rates, they intend for stations to follow those, and not use
the lowest (and most airtime-hogging) rates.
And I can say, I don't see why distributions should be turning that back
off. If the Basic Rates setting is wrong, then the that's up to the
network admin to fix.
All that is to say: I agree that this patch is purely for debugging, as
stated, and that it belongs in debugfs. I also maintain a distribution,
and I don't plan on using this beyond debugging.
Therefore:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
BTW, if we have clear guidelines on debugfs, module parameters, etc.,
maybe those should be going on the wiki? I know this came up before:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
At this point, I'm willing to write such guidelines, if I get an ack
from the relevant folks (I guess that's just Kalle?). It probably
belongs somewhere in this tree:
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation
similar to this:
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api
except it's not really an nl80211 thing. Suggestions welcome.
Side note: it could really use some cleanup -- like this page:
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/process
Brian
(changing subject, was "Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate")
Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
> BTW, if we have clear guidelines on debugfs, module parameters, etc.,
> maybe those should be going on the wiki? I know this came up before:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
>
> At this point, I'm willing to write such guidelines, if I get an ack
> from the relevant folks (I guess that's just Kalle?). It probably
> belongs somewhere in this tree:
>
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation
>
> similar to this:
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api
> except it's not really an nl80211 thing. Suggestions welcome.
I think this is a very good idea. Having general guidelines for wireless
drivers using user space interfaces would help both people submitting
patches and also people like me reviewing the patches.
We should try to get an ack for the guidelines at least from Johannes,
but I would prefer also involve Jakub and Dave (CCed) as they might have
some input from the network subsystem point of view.
Just to get this started, here's a draft list I came up of different
user space interfaces upstream wireless drivers are using:
* generic nl80211 (excluding testmode and vendor commands)
* nl80211 testmode commands
* nl80211 vendor commands
* sysfs[1]
* debugfs
* relayfs
* configfs[1]
* module parameters
* thermal subsystem
* firmware_request()
I'm not saying that we need to document all these in the first version,
I'm just trying to come up a comprehensive overview how wireless drivers
interact with the user space. And I'm sure I missed something. so please
do fill in.
> Side note: it could really use some cleanup -- like this page:
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/process
Heh, that is old information. TBH in practise I maintain only the
submittingpatches page (link in the signature), other pages I rarely
touch. And naturally I also look after ath10k and ath11k pages.
Any volunteers to clean that up?
[1] Actually I don't know if there are any valid use cases for sysfs and
configfs at the moment, but I'll include them in the list for
completeness.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On 10/11/2021 11:23 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (changing subject, was "Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate")
>
> Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> BTW, if we have clear guidelines on debugfs, module parameters, etc.,
>> maybe those should be going on the wiki? I know this came up before:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
>>
>> At this point, I'm willing to write such guidelines, if I get an ack
>> from the relevant folks (I guess that's just Kalle?). It probably
>> belongs somewhere in this tree:
>>
>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation
>>
>> similar to this:
>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api
>> except it's not really an nl80211 thing. Suggestions welcome.
>
> I think this is a very good idea. Having general guidelines for wireless
> drivers using user space interfaces would help both people submitting
> patches and also people like me reviewing the patches.
>
> We should try to get an ack for the guidelines at least from Johannes,
> but I would prefer also involve Jakub and Dave (CCed) as they might have
> some input from the network subsystem point of view.
>
> Just to get this started, here's a draft list I came up of different
> user space interfaces upstream wireless drivers are using:
>
> * generic nl80211 (excluding testmode and vendor commands)
>
> * nl80211 testmode commands
>
> * nl80211 vendor commands
>
> * sysfs[1]
>
> * debugfs
>
> * relayfs
>
> * configfs[1]
>
> * module parameters
>
> * thermal subsystem
>
> * firmware_request()
>
> I'm not saying that we need to document all these in the first version,
> I'm just trying to come up a comprehensive overview how wireless drivers
> interact with the user space. And I'm sure I missed something. so please
> do fill in.
Not sure if all of the above can be considered user-space interfaces,
but wireless driver developers could benefit from guidelines for them
regardless. Maybe following needs to be considered as well although I
think cfg80211 is taking care of it:
* rfkill
Regards,
Arend
>> Side note: it could really use some cleanup -- like this page:
>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/process
>
> Heh, that is old information. TBH in practise I maintain only the
> submittingpatches page (link in the signature), other pages I rarely
> touch. And naturally I also look after ath10k and ath11k pages.
>
> Any volunteers to clean that up?
>
> [1] Actually I don't know if there are any valid use cases for sysfs and
> configfs at the moment, but I'll include them in the list for
> completeness.
>
--
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and
destroy any printed copy of it.
Arend van Spriel <[email protected]> writes:
> On 10/11/2021 11:23 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> (changing subject, was "Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to
>> force lowest basic rate")
>>
>> Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> BTW, if we have clear guidelines on debugfs, module parameters, etc.,
>>> maybe those should be going on the wiki? I know this came up before:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
>>>
>>> At this point, I'm willing to write such guidelines, if I get an ack
>>> from the relevant folks (I guess that's just Kalle?). It probably
>>> belongs somewhere in this tree:
>>>
>>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation
>>>
>>> similar to this:
>>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api
>>> except it's not really an nl80211 thing. Suggestions welcome.
>>
>> I think this is a very good idea. Having general guidelines for wireless
>> drivers using user space interfaces would help both people submitting
>> patches and also people like me reviewing the patches.
>>
>> We should try to get an ack for the guidelines at least from Johannes,
>> but I would prefer also involve Jakub and Dave (CCed) as they might have
>> some input from the network subsystem point of view.
>>
>> Just to get this started, here's a draft list I came up of different
>> user space interfaces upstream wireless drivers are using:
>>
>> * generic nl80211 (excluding testmode and vendor commands)
>>
>> * nl80211 testmode commands
>>
>> * nl80211 vendor commands
>>
>> * sysfs[1]
>>
>> * debugfs
>>
>> * relayfs
>>
>> * configfs[1]
>>
>> * module parameters
>>
>> * thermal subsystem
>>
>> * firmware_request()
>>
>> I'm not saying that we need to document all these in the first version,
>> I'm just trying to come up a comprehensive overview how wireless drivers
>> interact with the user space. And I'm sure I missed something. so please
>> do fill in.
>
> Not sure if all of the above can be considered user-space interfaces,
> but wireless driver developers could benefit from guidelines for them
> regardless.
Maybe the name should be "Guidelines for wireless drivers" without being
too specific?
> Maybe following needs to be considered as well although I think
> cfg80211 is taking care of it:
>
> * rfkill
Yeah, it would be good to include rfkill.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
(replying to an old thread:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/[email protected]/ )
Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>> From: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
>>
>> The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted
>> smoothly in long range environment.
>> Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate
>> in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame.
>>
>> obtain current setting
>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>>
>> force lowest rate:
>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]>
>
> I believe some initial objection to this was because it was unclear if
> this is for "production" use (e.g., recommending distros to play with
> this) or for debugging. I'll admit, I requested the feature for patch 1,
> because I've seen that for those networks where people *do* configure
> odd Basic Rates, they intend for stations to follow those, and not use
> the lowest (and most airtime-hogging) rates.
>
> And I can say, I don't see why distributions should be turning that back
> off. If the Basic Rates setting is wrong, then the that's up to the
> network admin to fix.
>
> All that is to say: I agree that this patch is purely for debugging, as
> stated, and that it belongs in debugfs. I also maintain a distribution,
> and I don't plan on using this beyond debugging.
>
> Therefore:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
Ok, fair enough as long as this will not end up normal users using it. I
still would prefer to have extensive bitrate handling via nl80211 but
clearly it's not going anywhere.
But could the debugfs filename be more descriptive, for example
force_basic_rates or something like that?
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Kalle
> Valo
> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:01 PM
> To: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
> Cc: Pkshih <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate
>
> (replying to an old thread:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/[email protected]/ )
>
>
> Brian Norris <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> >> From: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted
> >> smoothly in long range environment.
> >> Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate
> >> in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame.
> >>
> >> obtain current setting
> >> cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
> >>
> >> force lowest rate:
> >> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]>
> >
> > I believe some initial objection to this was because it was unclear if
> > this is for "production" use (e.g., recommending distros to play with
> > this) or for debugging. I'll admit, I requested the feature for patch 1,
> > because I've seen that for those networks where people *do* configure
> > odd Basic Rates, they intend for stations to follow those, and not use
> > the lowest (and most airtime-hogging) rates.
> >
> > And I can say, I don't see why distributions should be turning that back
> > off. If the Basic Rates setting is wrong, then the that's up to the
> > network admin to fix.
> >
> > All that is to say: I agree that this patch is purely for debugging, as
> > stated, and that it belongs in debugfs. I also maintain a distribution,
> > and I don't plan on using this beyond debugging.
> >
> > Therefore:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
>
> Ok, fair enough as long as this will not end up normal users using it. I
> still would prefer to have extensive bitrate handling via nl80211 but
> clearly it's not going anywhere.
>
> But could the debugfs filename be more descriptive, for example
> force_basic_rates or something like that?
>
OK. Use 'force_lowest_basic_rate' by v3 [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/T/#t
--
Ping-Ke