Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Currently, in multi wiphy models, radio/link level synchronization is
> sufficient for MAC hardware (ieee80211_hw) reconfigure/recovery procedures
> since each radio/link is exposed as a MAC hardware (ieee80211_hw). However,
> in single wiphy models, multiple radio/links is exposed as a MAC hardware
> (ieee80211_hw) through the driver hardware abstraction (ath12k_hw) layer.
> In such scenario, we need synchronization between the reconfigure/recovery
> callback operations (i.e., ath12k_core_post_reconfigure_recovery(),
> ieee80211_ops->start(), ieee80211_ops->reconfig_complete(),
> ieee80211_ops->stop()) at the driver hardware abstraction (ath12k_hw) layer
> instead of radio/link (ath12k) layer. Therefore, introduce a new mutex in
> the ath12k_hw layer. This approach ensures compatibility of the hardware
> recovery procedure with both multi wiphy models and future single wiphy
> models.
>
> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.0.1-00029-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
>
> Signed-off-by: Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h
> @@ -600,7 +600,12 @@ struct ath12k {
> struct ath12k_hw {
> struct ieee80211_hw *hw;
>
> + /* To synchronize hardware restart operation */
> + struct mutex conf_mutex;
As we discussed already offline, there's a high bar for adding new
mutexes. I would rather remove the existing conf_mutex than add a new
one.
Also having two mutexes named 'conf_mutex' in the same driver is risky,
it would be very easy to confuse the two.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
