Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191219085816.20709-1-yhchuang@realtek.com> <20191219085816.20709-7-yhchuang@realtek.com>
 <20200222005242.GA100360@google.com> <d7c4c85ca707118a612a34607b4980b2448f2059.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <d7c4c85ca707118a612a34607b4980b2448f2059.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:33:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXPP31bXpjvYz=hbR_WmwbXb77NRodgSThcxnDgME5vFJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] rtw88: Add wowlan pattern match support
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Chiu <chiu@endlessm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Johannes,

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:21 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > This also hints at a deficiency in the wowlan APIs:
[...]
> Yeah, well, we didn't dream up arbitrary restrictions when the API was
> added :-)

Sure, I didn't expect that sort of foresight ;)
I was just highlighting that (if rtw88 can't fix it some other way)
rtw88 may need to extend the current APIs.

> It's maybe a bit harder now to add them, but we can do it in cfg80211,
> and reject it if the conditions are not met, and then older userspace
> will simply not be able to figure out easily why it was rejected, if it
> doesn't understand some new features bits/capability advertisement, I
> guess?

Seems reasonable.

> Ideally, this can just be fixed;

Yes, I'd like to see what Realtek folks have to say.

> if not, IMHO better to add some
> advertisement bits, but if not then we can surely add some kind of
> filter callback that's invoked at config time, rather than only at
> suspend time when it's way too late to do anything about it.

Yeah, I'd have to see what sort of restrictions we're working with --
sufficiently complex rules might not make for good "advertisement"
bits.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Brian