Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-8678-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <ce3cd7b2-4e95-411f-a08c-4bb86ad4be7e@nbd.name>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:00:31 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 2/8] wifi: cfg80211: add support for advertising multiple
 radios belonging to a wiphy
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: quic_adisi@quicinc.com, quic_periyasa@quicinc.com,
 ath12k@lists.infradead.org
References: <cover.386a66ec6a89750d4890f63f0d28582a52b838b5.1717696995.git-series.nbd@nbd.name>
 <db7d83ea6d97e118a14029727e9e18d6e47b753d.1717696995.git-series.nbd@nbd.name>
 <0ae7869140c8c2537fc638dba14223b25383f3d9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Autocrypt: addr=nbd@nbd.name; keydata=
 xsDiBEah5CcRBADIY7pu4LIv3jBlyQ/2u87iIZGe6f0f8pyB4UjzfJNXhJb8JylYYRzIOSxh
 ExKsdLCnJqsG1PY1mqTtoG8sONpwsHr2oJ4itjcGHfn5NJSUGTbtbbxLro13tHkGFCoCr4Z5
 Pv+XRgiANSpYlIigiMbOkide6wbggQK32tC20QxUIwCg4k6dtV/4kwEeiOUfErq00TVqIiEE
 AKcUi4taOuh/PQWx/Ujjl/P1LfJXqLKRPa8PwD4j2yjoc9l+7LptSxJThL9KSu6gtXQjcoR2
 vCK0OeYJhgO4kYMI78h1TSaxmtImEAnjFPYJYVsxrhay92jisYc7z5R/76AaELfF6RCjjGeP
 wdalulG+erWju710Bif7E1yjYVWeA/9Wd1lsOmx6uwwYgNqoFtcAunDaMKi9xVQW18FsUusM
 TdRvTZLBpoUAy+MajAL+R73TwLq3LnKpIcCwftyQXK5pEDKq57OhxJVv1Q8XkA9Dn1SBOjNB
 l25vJDFAT9ntp9THeDD2fv15yk4EKpWhu4H00/YX8KkhFsrtUs69+vZQwc0cRmVsaXggRmll
 dGthdSA8bmJkQG5iZC5uYW1lPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJGoeQnAhsjBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYCAwEC
 HgECF4AACgkQ130UHQKnbvXsvgCgjsAIIOsY7xZ8VcSm7NABpi91yTMAniMMmH7FRenEAYMa
 VrwYTIThkTlQzsFNBEah5FQQCACMIep/hTzgPZ9HbCTKm9xN4bZX0JjrqjFem1Nxf3MBM5vN
 CYGBn8F4sGIzPmLhl4xFeq3k5irVg/YvxSDbQN6NJv8o+tP6zsMeWX2JjtV0P4aDIN1pK2/w
 VxcicArw0VYdv2ZCarccFBgH2a6GjswqlCqVM3gNIMI8ikzenKcso8YErGGiKYeMEZLwHaxE
 Y7mTPuOTrWL8uWWRL5mVjhZEVvDez6em/OYvzBwbkhImrryF29e3Po2cfY2n7EKjjr3/141K
 DHBBdgXlPNfDwROnA5ugjjEBjwkwBQqPpDA7AYPvpHh5vLbZnVGu5CwG7NAsrb2isRmjYoqk
 wu++3117AAMFB/9S0Sj7qFFQcD4laADVsabTpNNpaV4wAgVTRHKV/kC9luItzwDnUcsZUPdQ
 f3MueRJ3jIHU0UmRBG3uQftqbZJj3ikhnfvyLmkCNe+/hXhPu9sGvXyi2D4vszICvc1KL4RD
 aLSrOsROx22eZ26KqcW4ny7+va2FnvjsZgI8h4sDmaLzKczVRIiLITiMpLFEU/VoSv0m1F4B
 FtRgoiyjFzigWG0MsTdAN6FJzGh4mWWGIlE7o5JraNhnTd+yTUIPtw3ym6l8P+gbvfoZida0
 TspgwBWLnXQvP5EDvlZnNaKa/3oBes6z0QdaSOwZCRA3QSLHBwtgUsrT6RxRSweLrcabwkkE
 GBECAAkFAkah5FQCGwwACgkQ130UHQKnbvW2GgCeMncXpbbWNT2AtoAYICrKyX5R3iMAoMhw
 cL98efvrjdstUfTCP2pfetyN
In-Reply-To: <0ae7869140c8c2537fc638dba14223b25383f3d9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07.06.24 11:24, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-06-06 at 20:07 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> 
>> The prerequisite for MLO support in cfg80211/mac80211 is that all the links
>> participating in MLO must be from the same wiphy/ieee80211_hw. To meet this
>> expectation, some drivers may need to group multiple discrete hardware each
>> acting as a link in MLO under single wiphy.
> 
> This is of course the motivation now, but I do wonder if this wouldn't
> potentially also apply to a single device that's full dual-band capable
> in some way? But doesn't really matter now.
> 
> But the thing is that it would let userspace differentiate between what
> we mostly have today in a single device (multiple channels can be used,
> but you have to go to powersave etc.), vs. a fully concurrent device.
> 
> IOW, it feels like this could be used to advertise fully concurrent
> capabilities?

Yes, that's my intention with the patches as well. I will update the 
description.

>> + * struct wiphy_radio - This structure describes a physical radio belonging
>> + * to a wiphy. It is used to describe concurrent-channel capabilities of the
>> + * phy. Only one channel can be active on the radio described by struct
>> + * wiphy_radio.
> 
> that's a bit long for the 'short description' :P
> 
> maybe just say "struct wiphy_radio - physical radio of a wiphy" and move
> the full description down.

Sure

>> + *
>> + * @radio: radios belonging to this wiphy
>> + * @n_radio: number of radios
> 
> Somewhere - either here or above - we should probably say that it's
> assumed you only have a single radio (with the properties covered by the
> interface combinations in the wiphy itself) if this isn't given at all.
> 
> (Which is what we assume today, more or less.)
> 
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/nl80211.h
>> @@ -3401,6 +3401,8 @@ enum nl80211_attrs {
>>  
>>  	NL80211_ATTR_ASSOC_SPP_AMSDU,
>>  
>> +	NL80211_ATTR_RADIOS,
> 
> missing docs
> 
>> +/**
>> + * enum nl80211_wiphy_radio_attrs - wiphy radio attributes
>> + *
>> + * @__NL80211_WIPHY_RADIO_ATTR_INVALID: Invalid
> 
> maybe if this is WIPHY_RADIO also call it NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_RADIOS
> above?

Will do

>> + * @NL80211_WIPHY_RADIO_ATTR_FREQ_RANGES: Nested array of frequency ranges
>> + *	supported by this radio.
> 
> Do we really want this complexity? We only have a single range now, do
> we expect that to change? Non-contiguous ranges, where a hole in the
> middle is supported by another radio?
> 
> Not sure I see the value vs. just having min/max freq directly here?

I think there's hardware where one of the radios can be dual-band 
(non-concurrent).

>> +	freqs = nla_nest_start_noflag(msg, NL80211_WIPHY_RADIO_ATTR_FREQ_RANGES);
> 
> Please don't add new _noflag code.
> 
>> +	nl_combis = nla_nest_start_noflag(msg,
>> +					  NL80211_WIPHY_RADIO_ATTR_INTERFACE_COMBINATIONS);
> 
> same here
> 
> (and yes maybe userspace wants to unify the parsing of this with the
> existing interface combinations attribute and pass the attribute ID or
> something, but then it can fix the nested flag too.)

Will remove _noflag.

- Felix