> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2024 21:55
> To: Korenblit, Miriam Rachel <miriam.rachel.korenblit@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] wifi: iwlwifi: Fix eMLSR band comparison.
>
> On 11/21/24 12:24, Ben Greear wrote:
> > On 11/21/24 12:11 PM, Korenblit, Miriam Rachel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2024 23:26
> >>> To: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] wifi: iwlwifi: Fix eMLSR band comparison.
> >>>
> >>> From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Do not make assumptions about what band 'a' or 'b' are on.
> >>> And add new reason code for when eMLSR is disabled due to band.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h | 2 ++
> >>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c
> >>> b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c
> >>> index bb3de07bc6be..f3fb37fec8a8 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c
> >>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> >>> HOW(EXIT_LOW_RSSI) \
> >>> HOW(EXIT_COEX) \
> >>> HOW(EXIT_BANDWIDTH) \
> >>> + HOW(EXIT_BAND) \
> >>> HOW(EXIT_CSA) \
> >>> HOW(EXIT_LINK_USAGE)
> >>>
> >>> @@ -750,11 +751,17 @@ bool iwl_mvm_mld_valid_link_pair(struct
> >>> ieee80211_vif *vif,
> >>> iwl_mvm_esr_disallowed_with_link(mvm, vif, b, false))
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> - if (a->chandef->width != b->chandef->width ||
> >>> - !(a->chandef->chan->band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ &&
> >>> - b->chandef->chan->band == NL80211_BAND_5GHZ))
> >>> + if (a->chandef->width != b->chandef->width)
> >>> ret |= IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BANDWIDTH;
> >>>
> >>> + /* Only supports 5g and 6g bands at the moment */
> >>> + if (((a->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_6GHZ) &&
> >>> + (a->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_5GHZ)) ||
> >>> + ((b->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_6GHZ) &&
> >>> + (b->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_5GHZ)) ||
> >>> + (a->chandef->chan->band == b->chandef->chan->band))
> >>> + ret |= IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND;
> >>> +
> >>> if (ret) {
> >>> IWL_DEBUG_INFO(mvm,
> >>> "Links %d and %d are not a valid pair for
> >>> EMLSR, a-
> >>>> chwidth: %d b: %d band-a: %d band-b: %d\n", diff --git
> >>> a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h
> >>> b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h
> >>> index ac4e135ed91b..22bec9ca46bb 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h
> >>> @@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ struct iwl_mvm_vif_link_info {
> >>> * preventing the enablement of EMLSR
> >>> * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_CSA: CSA happened, so exit EMLSR
> >>> * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_LINK_USAGE: Exit EMLSR due to low tpt on
> >>> secondary link
> >>> + * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND: Exit EMLSR due to incompatible Bands
> >>> */
> >>> enum iwl_mvm_esr_state {
> >>> IWL_MVM_ESR_BLOCKED_PREVENTION = 0x1, @@ -382,6 +383,7
> @@
> >>> enum iwl_mvm_esr_state {
> >>> IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BANDWIDTH = 0x80000,
> >>> IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_CSA = 0x100000,
> >>> IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_LINK_USAGE = 0x200000,
> >>> + IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND = 0x400000,
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> #define IWL_MVM_BLOCK_ESR_REASONS 0xffff
> >>> --
> >>> 2.42.0
> >>>
> >> Hi Ben.
> >>
> >> It is actually required that a (the better link) will be on 6 GHz and
> >> b on 5 GHz Regarding the new exit reason, it is not really needed as
> >> we can easily differentiate between the cases (from other logs)
> >
> > Hello Miri,
> >
> > I tested this patch, and it fixed problems for me when I ran a test
> > that created interfering traffic on 5ghz and then later on 6Ghz. I
> > expected eMLSR mode to stay active no matter where the interfering
> > traffic existed. With this patch, and a few others I posted, the be200 then
> works fairly well.
> >
> > 6Ghz is not always better, for instance in case where it is congested
> > with external traffic.
> >
> > Can you please let me know *why* you think the better link must always be
> 6ghz in this case?
>
> Hello Miriam,
>
> I wanted to check to see if you still consider this patch invalid? If so, I'll adjust
> it to work better as out-of-tree patch and add it to my pile.
>
> If you think core logic is fine but the patch needs some tweaks, please let me
> know your suggestions.
We are just changing this logic internally
(and allow also 2.4 GHz)
So I am not going to take it.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
