hiho > On 29. Aug 2022, at 17:19, Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Good point, definitely makes sense. > > Would this be sufficient as an implementation for this RFC? > > Greetings > Jonas lets stick to not doing top posts ;) > >> On 29. Aug 2022, at 16:52, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 16:52 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 16:51 +0200, Thomas Hühn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Compile-Tested: current wireless-next tree with all flags on >>>>>> Tested-on PCEngines APU with ath9k WiFi device on OpenWrt Linux >>>>>> Kernel 5.10.137 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That seems just a little old? Not sure I'd trust that given the major >>>>> changes in the tree recently? >>>> >>>> Good point, we can test this with 5.15.63 by enabling the OpenWrt testing kernel … would that be ok ? >>>> >>> >>> Well a lot of major changes just happened 5.19 -> 6.0, so something more >>> recent would be better? >>> >> >> Maybe you could add support in hwsim? >> hwsim support is a good idea for this patch series and probably a debugfs to annotate static power levels per sta. We are working on a joint rate and power algorithm, but that is quit a big change on its own and probably better reviewable in a seperate patch series after this one that enabled the tpc annotation parts. Greetings Thomas >> johannes > — Prof. Dr.-Ing. Thomas Hühn Hochschule Nordhausen Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften - Institut für Informatik, Automatisierung und Elektronik Leitung Kommunikationstechnik und Bussysteme Weinberghof 4 99734 Nordhausen, Germany Tel: +49 3631 420 318 Fax: +49 3631 420 818 thomas.huehn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.hs-nordhausen.de
