On Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 7:38 PM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/27/2023 10:05 AM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> > The is a layout mismatch between the bitfield representing scan_flags in
> > struct scan_req_params & the bits as defined in the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
> > Lets fix it by making the struct match the #defines.
> >
> > I tried to correct it by making the struct match the #define and it
> > worked for WMI_SCAN_FLAG_FORCE_ACTIVE_ON_DFS / scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn
> > so I'm assuming this is the right thing to do.
> >
> > Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.7.0.1-01744-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Escande <nico.escande@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > index 100bb816b592..0b4e6c2f7860 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > @@ -3348,17 +3348,17 @@ struct scan_req_params {
> > scan_f_filter_prb_req:1,
> > scan_f_bypass_dfs_chn:1,
> > scan_f_continue_on_err:1,
> > + scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> > + scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > + scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > + scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > + scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> > scan_f_offchan_mgmt_tx:1,
> > scan_f_offchan_data_tx:1,
> > - scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> > scan_f_capture_phy_err:1,
> > scan_f_strict_passive_pch:1,
> > scan_f_half_rate:1,
> > scan_f_quarter_rate:1,
> > - scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > - scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > - scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > - scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> > scan_f_add_rand_seq_in_probe:1,
> > scan_f_en_ie_whitelist_in_probe:1,
> > scan_f_forced:1,
>
> You are convoluting two different data structures.
So maybe I'm missing something and please correct me where I'm wrong.
> struct scan_req_params is used to represent a scan request within the
> host driver. This does not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
>
In mac.c when we start a scan with ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() for example we first
initialize a struct scan_req_params with ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init().
ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init() by itself does use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros
arg->scan_flags |= WMI_SCAN_CHAN_STAT_EVENT;
Then later on in ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() we either use the bitfield like with
arg->scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe = 1;
or we directly modify scan_flags like with
arg->scan_flags |= WMI_SCAN_FLAG_PASSIVE;
So is it not expected to use those flags there ?
> struct wmi_start_scan_cmd is used to represent the scan request command
> sent to firmware. This struct uses the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros to fill some
> members of this struct in ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags().
Indeed ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags() copies from struct
scan_req_params to struct wmi_start_scan_cmd but this time we do not use
scan_flags directly, only ever use the bitfield that is in the same union
as scan_flags
So having the bitfield out of sync does cause the struct wmi_start_scan_cmd that
gets sent to the driver to not reflect the desired state set in scan_req_params.
> So your change has no effect on the driver operation and incorrectly
> tries to foist the firmware definition upon the host internal
> representation.
So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.
>
> So NAK to this patch.
>
> /jeff
