On Mon, 14 May 2018 at 11:25, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > May we have a little more information about how this is supposed to work? > > > > It looks like we're supposed to send the information about the matched > > radar pattern back to the firmware for confirmation? What's the intended > > behaviour from the firmware? Will the firmware have a hard-coded set of > > patterns we have to answer in/by? > That's really an implementation detail inside the firmware and from > ath10k point of view we don't care what checks the firmware has, we just > provide all the necessary information. The checks in firmware might even > change in later releases. > > I ask (like Peter, we work together) because we've had to tweak this > > behaviour a little to actually pass FCC / ETSI DFS certification. My > > general concern is that this'll cause a lot of false detects on boards that > > haven't had things tweaked for the given board. As far as I'm aware the DFS > > parameters are still hard-coded into the firmware image so if you have to > > change those you're SOL without the relevant NDAs - this makes running the > > open source DFS stuff a little tricksy on vendor boards. > This shouldn't cause more false detections, the pattern detection from > ath.ko is still used as before. The firmware will just disable DFS > altogether if it thinks ath10k is not compliant. Heh, well the fun one for production for us is "ok, so what's non-compliant" ? Eg - if it's 1 out of 100 that we don't hit the explicit timing requirements because of the rest of the linux kernel (eg someone holds a spinlock more than they should) then I'd prefer that we got a notification that something happened so we can fix it. Otherwise in the field it'll just be "hey, our stuff stopped working" because whatever the firmware expectations are aren't being met. Again, we're OK because we can at least inspect what's going on, but not everyone doing ath10k development/deployment will be so lucky :( -adrian
