Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:41581 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932500AbeBLEQB (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:16:01 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f69.google.com ([209.85.160.69]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1el5X5-0006WF-Td for linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 04:16:00 +0000 Received: by mail-pl0-f69.google.com with SMTP id z11so2204679plo.21 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:15:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: turn on btcoex_enable as default From: Kai Heng Feng In-Reply-To: <7170e2d5-a59d-8260-fa8e-f02f583b773f@nbd.name> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:15:53 +0800 Cc: Kalle Valo , ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <6A0F65EF-A7C4-469F-8FAF-CBE314676237@canonical.com> (sfid-20180212_051625_216856_CA54C605) References: <20180208052801.15670-1-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> <56d650e6-d26f-087c-4e86-2e5d4e859414@nbd.name> <87k1vmeip8.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <7170e2d5-a59d-8260-fa8e-f02f583b773f@nbd.name> To: Felix Fietkau Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On 10 Feb 2018, at 10:05 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > On 2018-02-10 14:56, Kai Heng Feng wrote: >> >>> On 9 Feb 2018, at 3:16 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Sure, but we have to make sure that we don't create regressions on >>> existing systems. For example, did you test this with any system which >>> don't support btcoex? (just asking, haven't tested this myself) >> >> No not really, but I will definitely test it. >> The only module I have that uses ath9k is Dell’s DW1707. >> How do I check if it support btcoex or not? > I just reviewed the code again, and I am sure that we cannot merge this > patch. Enabling the btcoex parameter makes the driver enable a whole > bunch of code starting timers, listening to some GPIOs, etc. > > On non-btcoex systems, some of those GPIOs might be floating or even > connected to different things, which could cause a lot of undefined > behavior. > > This is simply too big a risk, so there absolutely needs to be a > whitelist for systems that need this, otherwise it has to remain > disabled by default. So what information can we use to whitelist btcoex chips? Can we get btcoex support status at ath9k probing? Kai-Heng > > - Felix