On 1/15/2025 12:10 PM, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > On 1/15/25 11:11, Aaradhana Sahu wrote: >> >> >> On 1/15/2025 10:56 AM, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: >>> On 1/15/25 09:55, Aaradhana Sahu wrote: >>>> Currently pdev id is not set properly. That can cause a crash >>>> if pdev id is not equal to the pdev id when firmware test >>>> command is run during AP bring up or ping. >>>> >>>> Set pdev id in function ath12k_tm_cmd_wmi to resolve this >>>> issue. >>>> >>>> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.3.1-00173-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1 >>>> >>>> Co-developed-by: Rajat Soni <quic_rajson@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rajat Soni <quic_rajson@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aaradhana Sahu <quic_aarasahu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/testmode.c | 11 +++++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Previous patch "[PATCH v9 3/5] wifi: ath12k: add factory test mode support" only added testmode.c file isn't it? So can't we squash this patch in that? >>> >>> Let's not introduce a bug in patch X and then in same series fix it at patch Y. >>> >> >> This patch does not address any issues related to Factory Test Mode (FTM). >> Instead, it focuses only on the ath11k-fwtest command, which is used for >> certification testing and is distinct from FTM. >> >> Initially, this patch was submitted independently as '[PATCH v2] wifi: ath12k: Fill pdev id for fw test cmd' >> during the internal review. >> However, Kalle suggested incorporating this patch with the FTM patches. > > That is good. But that comment does not mean it needs to be a *separate* patch? It should be in this series that's what Kalle wanted to ensure. > >> >> As this patch addresses ath11k-fwtest command issue, that's why this is not merge with [PATCH v9 3/5]. >> > > That is fine, but you are adding the file in 3/5 so why not have this part as well in same patch only? And let me ask this way, if you don't apply 3/5, will your issue exist? Probably No? Since ath12k/testmode.c file itself is not there before 3/5. So if you know something is incorrect, why introduce it in the first place? > > During the internal review of this patch, the leads explicitly stated that it should be separate. Based on their feedback, I made the necessary changes. Since this was previously discussed, I would prefer to keep this patch separate.
