Was this really tested on QCN9074 as the commit text suggests...?
> const struct ath11k_hw_ops ipq6018_ops = {
> @@ -1132,6 +1147,7 @@ const struct ath11k_hw_ops wcn6750_ops = {
> .rx_desc_get_msdu_payload = ath11k_hw_qcn9074_rx_desc_get_msdu_payload,
> .reo_setup = ath11k_hw_wcn6855_reo_setup,
> .mpdu_info_get_peerid = ath11k_hw_ipq8074_mpdu_info_get_peerid,
> + .mpdu_info_get_mpdu_len = ath11k_hw_qcn9074_mpdu_info_get_mpdu_len,
...
> +static u32 ath11k_hal_rx_mpduinfo_get_mpdu_len(struct ath11k_base *ab,
> + struct hal_rx_mpdu_info *mpdu_info)
> +{
> + return ab->hw_params.hw_ops->mpdu_info_get_mpdu_len(mpdu_info);
> +}
I think you want to put this under qcn9074_ops. As of now, when
QCN9074 is present, it attempts to jump to a NULL pointer as
mpdu_info_get_mpdu_len remains uninitialized for qcn9074_ops.
And, do you not need to define mpdu_info_get_mpdu_len for all the
other hw_ops? If so, please be careful about defining it for
WCN6855/WCN6750 as there was a recent regression due to how the RX
MPDU info is provided by those firmwares as it differed from
IPQ8074/QCN9074. I personally do not have the appropriate literature
to determine whether or not this is consequential or not here as well,
though it seems like it would be:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20230404072234.18503-3-quic_youghand@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Tyler
