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: <3e269bce8d73577fb1183697655d6ad66edf866f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/6] mac80211_hwsim: add TPC per packet support
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:09:45 +0100
In-Reply-To: <951FA42C-E52F-4FDB-AB73-AEF76435380C@gmail.com>
References: <20220920104032.496697-1-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
         <20220920104032.496697-6-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
         <5d15d193c76dcc2cbd59b26912973e3bce34c776.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <951FA42C-E52F-4FDB-AB73-AEF76435380C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 15:32 +0100, Jonas Jelonek wrote:
> >=20
> > Not sure I like this either - I think we should probably create the
> > wiphys dynamically for most features these days?
>=20
> just to make sure I got it correctly: so you propose that these
> params, that are=20
> currently done with module_param(), should be switched to a dynamic
> netlink approach, or only for TPC and RCTBL for now?

We do have dynamic parameters for all the module parameters I believe,
but we've shied away from actually removing the existing module
parameters for legacy/compatibility reasons.

However, I think that for new parameters, there's really no good reason
to provide module parameters, since the test scripting etc. can
dynamically create wiphys with the necessary capabilities. Even the
hostap/hwsim tests can and do already do that :)

> As a first step I focused on providing a proof-of-concept
> implementation in hwsim for my
> TPC proposal, implementing netlink to set tx power and other could be
> part of the next step.
> Do you think this could be fine or do you propose something different?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, tbh. I guess I kind of thought
you were going to adjust minstrel to do TPC automatically.

We already have netlink support for setting per-station TX power which I
guess this should then listen to? See NL80211_ATTR_STA_TX_POWER_SETTING
and NL80211_ATTR_STA_TX_POWER etc. I think it's not supported in
mac80211, but probably could easily be after your patches?

johannes