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;
Message-ID: <a47bf10273caff11c638ffbbfd7960fc84dbe0b9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] cfg80211: add NL command to set 6 GHz power mode
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:42:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <df0b368c-3b84-653e-6ef8-5446b75ce797@quicinc.com>
References: <20220704102341.5692-1-quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
         <20220704102341.5692-5-quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
         <b36799bc1129baebbb64032deeaae72e4ca1af7b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <df0b368c-3b84-653e-6ef8-5446b75ce797@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-2.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 09:54 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
> On 9/6/2022 16:35, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 15:53 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
> > >=20
> > > + * @NL80211_ATTR_6GHZ_REG_AP_POWER_MODE: Configure 6 GHz regulatory =
power mode
> > > + *	for access points. Referenced from &enum ieee80211_ap_reg_power.
> > > + *
> > > + * @NL80211_ATTR_6GHZ_REG_CLIENT_POWER_MODE: Configure 6 GHz regulat=
ory power
> > > + *	mode for clients. Referenced from &enum ieee80211_client_reg_powe=
r.
> >=20
> > I don't really see a good reason to have two attributes for this, rathe=
r
> > than validating their value based on the iftype?
> >=20
> The policy for each varies. For AP power mode, it can vary from 0 to 2=
=20
> (total 3 power modes currently), and for clients 0 to 1 (total 2 power=
=20
> modes). So, if we have just 1 NL_ATTR, while parsing obviously we can do=
=20
> based on iftype but in NL_ATTR policy validation, for clients it will=20
> pass value 2 where actually it should not. Will that be fine?

Yeah, I dunno. That just means we'd have to validate it in the code
rather than the policy. Not really sure which is better.

johannes