Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] mac80211: add TPC support in control path
From:   Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <467218ec220ea6e36b4222efc5c46e4e350fe1ea.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:06:20 +0200
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, nbd@nbd.name,
        =?utf-8?Q?Thomas_H=C3=BChn?= <thomas.huehn@hs-nordhausen.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE871D89-B996-4D8B-8C65-7C53382C30D8@gmail.com>
References: <20220829144147.484787-1-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
 <467218ec220ea6e36b4222efc5c46e4e350fe1ea.camel@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Precedence: bulk

We planned to get these changes upstream at first to have the foundation =
for TPC
in the mac80211, and then develop driver implementations and TPC =
algorithm on=20
top of this once all is reviewed, approved and upstream.=20
The ath9k tpc support is currently not upstream-ready but can be in a =
next version.
For testing the actual TPC support I modified minstrel=E2=80=99s debugfs =
to be able to set=20
fixed tx-power per STA.

I think we can develop this series further to come up with fully working =
driver
implementation and a TPC algorithm if you think that would be better.=20
Else we could also provide at least a debugfs patch to be able to set =
fixed
tx-power per STA.

Greetings
Jonas

> On 29. Aug 2022, at 16:46, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 16:41 +0200, Jonas Jelonek wrote:
>>=20
>> I tested the tx-power annotation with an implementation of TPC in =
ath9k
>> (not included in this RFC) and small changes in minstrel_ht for =
debugfs
>> access. Tx-power status report in ath9k required the proposed utility
>> function in mac80211.
>>=20
>=20
> Huh wait, now that I got to the end of the series ... this doesn't
> actually *do* anything, so what's the point? Shouldn't it come with =
some
> implementation of the control?
>=20
> johannes