Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-8627-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Harshitha Prem <quic_hprem@quicinc.com>
Cc: ath12k@lists.infradead.org,  linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
  Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>,  Jeff Johnson
 <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/8] wifi: ath12k: Introduce device group abstraction
References: <20240531180411.1149605-1-quic_hprem@quicinc.com>
	<20240531180411.1149605-7-quic_hprem@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 18:58:25 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20240531180411.1149605-7-quic_hprem@quicinc.com> (Harshitha
	Prem's message of "Fri, 31 May 2024 23:34:09 +0530")
Message-ID: <87wmn2oyfy.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Harshitha Prem <quic_hprem@quicinc.com> writes:

> From: Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>
>
> Currently, single device is probed and once firmware is ready, the device
> is registered to mac80211. For multi-link operation, different bands of
> different devices or same device would be part of a single wiphy and for
> this, hardware device group abstraction would be helpful.
>
> Hardware device group abstraction - when there are multiple devices (with
> single radio or dual radio) that are connected by any means of interface
> for communicating between them, then these devices can be combined
> together as a single group using a group id to form a group abstraction
> and register to mac80211.
>
> The grouping information of multiple devices would be based on device tree
> during device probe. If no such information is available then a single
> device will be part of group abstraction and registered to mac80211 else
> multiple devices advertised in device tree are combined and then registered
> to mac80211.

BTW I'm not sure if Device Tree is the right approach to configure the
groups. For example, that would mean that systems not using DT would not
support MLO at all, right? And also it would not be very flexible to
change the group setup.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches