Praneesh P <quic_ppranees@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 12/16/2024 9:45 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> P Praneesh <quic_ppranees@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> There is mismatch between the format of monitor destination TLVs received >>> and the expected format by the current implementation. The received TLVs >>> are in 64-bit format, while the implementation is designed to handle >>> 32-bit TLVs. This leads to incorrect parsing. Fix it by adding support >>> for parsing 64-bit TLVs. >>> >>> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.3.1-00173-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: P Praneesh <quic_ppranees@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> What about WCN7850? The commit message mentions nothing about it so >> I >> can only assume that this breaks WCN7850. >> Please remember that ath12k is not only a QCN9274 project. If I got >> 0.01 >> EUR every time I say that... >> > This change is common for WCN7850 and QCN9274. Sure, I will add > WCN7850 tested on tag in v2. I am not exactly looking for a Tested-on tag. What I'm asking is that people take into account WCN7850 when designing and writing patches ath12k. For example, is the firmware interface same and similar functional differences between supported hardware families. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
