Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-1923-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:09:28 +0100
Message-Id: <CYFAYRP5MWTZ.Q272WWLLE7MW@gmail.com>
Cc: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct
 scan_req_params
From: "Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@gmail.com>
To: "Jeff Johnson" <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>, "Kalle Valo"
 <kvalo@kernel.org>
References: <20231127180559.1696041-1-nico.escande@gmail.com>
 <bdcdbd06-e9bd-4a92-b27b-d94b2d8fb52d@quicinc.com>
 <CX9YPUDTAT1N.23DMRB5O9FEAO@gmail.com>
 <20c7a367-2243-4e13-b023-9999dc6c6790@quicinc.com>
 <CXC03GYAN4VN.2PQ88Q1S7IL6H@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CXC03GYAN4VN.2PQ88Q1S7IL6H@gmail.com>

On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> [...]
> > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_fl=
ags ever
> > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCA=
N_XXX with
> > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfi=
eld.
> >
> > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct an=
d
> > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks
> > except when filling the firmware structure.
> >
> > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to
> > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may
> > have a different opinion on this.
> >
> > /jeff
>
> No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything.
> As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I onl=
y care
> that this gets resolved.

Hi Kalle/Jeff,

Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ?
Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using t=
he
bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to
their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wm=
i.