Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201215172113.5038-1-youghand@codeaurora.org>
 <18dfa52b-5edd-f737-49c9-f532c1c10ba2@candelatech.com> <X9vaqxub2F/8YPT8@google.com>
 <6cec8a4c-620f-093d-2739-7eafe89cd79a@candelatech.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cec8a4c-620f-093d-2739-7eafe89cd79a@candelatech.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:18:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXP+b8bik767LxcN9jV+ETpJ+_4HKH7rvsGgXbAHidFAng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mac80211: Trigger disconnect for STA during recovery
To:     Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc:     Youghandhar Chintala <youghand@codeaurora.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@vger.kernel.org>" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kuabhs@chromium.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Rakesh Pillai <pillair@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:57 PM Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 12/17/20 2:24 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > I'd also note that we don't operate in AP mode -- only STA -- and IIRC
> > Ben, you've complained about AP mode in the past.
>
> I complain about all sorts of things, but I'm usually running
> station mode :)

Hehe, fair :) Maybe I'm mixed up.

But I do get the feeling that specifically within the ath10k family,
there are wildly different use cases (mobile, PC, AP) and chips (and
firmware) that tend to go along with them, and that those use cases
get a fairly different population of {developers, testers, reporters}.
So claiming "feature X works" pretty much always has to be couched in
which chips, firmware, and use case. And there's certainly some wisdom
in these sections:

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/submittingpatches#hardware_families
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/submittingpatches#tested-on_tag

> Do you actually see iwlwifi stations stay associated through
> firmware crashes?

Yes.

> Anyway, happy to hear some have seamless recovery, and in that case,
> I have no objections to the patch.

OK! I hope I'm not the only one with such results, because then I
still might question my sanity (and test coverage), but that's still
my understanding.

BTW, I haven't yet closely reviewed the patch series myself, but I ACK
the concept.

Brian