On 7/30/2018 4:06 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Sergey Matyukevich <sergey.matyukevich.os@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
From: Andrey Shevchenko <ashevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Implement support for PTA (Packet Traffic Arbitration) configuration.
The PTA mechanism is used to coordinate sharing of the medium between
WiFi and other 2.4 wireless networks, e.g. Bluetooth or ZigBee.
This patch implements core infrastructure and vendor specific commands
to control PTA functionality in firmware.
And no description of the actual interface which would have helped with
the review.
Anyway, the vendor commands are pain and they just make me grumpy. The
original idea was that upstream drivers should not support them at all,
later we flexed the rules so that low level hardware specific interfaces
might be ok, for example we added one in wil6210.
If I would even consider applying a patch which adds a vendor command it
needs a really good commit log with a proper description of the actual
interface and good justifications why a generic nl80211 command won't
work. I don't see anything even remotely close here.
Sorry for being grumpy, I just hate these vendor commands. Especially
when I see that a generic nl80211 command has not even be consired at
all.
For what it is worth, looking at part of the patch:
+/**
+ * enum qlink_pta_mode - Packet Traffic Arbiter operating modes
+ *
+ * @QLINK_PTA_MODE_DISABLED: PTA is disabled
+ * @QLINK_PTA_MODE_2_WIRE: enable PTA 2-wire mode
+ */
+enum qlink_pta_mode {
+ QLINK_PTA_MODE_DISABLED = 0,
+ QLINK_PTA_MODE_2_WIRE = 2
+};
+
it smells very much like low-level btcoex. The question is whether this
needs to be conveyed from user-space or should these be device
configuration, eg. like DT properties.
Regards,
Arend
