> -----Original Message----- > From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <kvalo=codeaurora.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kalle > Valo > Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:01 PM > To: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; tony0620emma@xxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > steventing@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate > > (replying to an old thread: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20210422030413.9738-2-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx/ ) > > > Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > >> From: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted > >> smoothly in long range environment. > >> Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate > >> in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame. > >> > >> obtain current setting > >> cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates > >> > >> force lowest rate: > >> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I believe some initial objection to this was because it was unclear if > > this is for "production" use (e.g., recommending distros to play with > > this) or for debugging. I'll admit, I requested the feature for patch 1, > > because I've seen that for those networks where people *do* configure > > odd Basic Rates, they intend for stations to follow those, and not use > > the lowest (and most airtime-hogging) rates. > > > > And I can say, I don't see why distributions should be turning that back > > off. If the Basic Rates setting is wrong, then the that's up to the > > network admin to fix. > > > > All that is to say: I agree that this patch is purely for debugging, as > > stated, and that it belongs in debugfs. I also maintain a distribution, > > and I don't plan on using this beyond debugging. > > > > Therefore: > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Ok, fair enough as long as this will not end up normal users using it. I > still would prefer to have extensive bitrate handling via nl80211 but > clearly it's not going anywhere. > > But could the debugfs filename be more descriptive, for example > force_basic_rates or something like that? > OK. Use 'force_lowest_basic_rate' by v3 [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20211102022454.10944-1-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t -- Ping-Ke
