On 5/28/2025 11:41 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 5/21/2025 10:33 PM, Roopni Devanathan wrote:
>> Add support to get the radio for which RTS threshold needs to be changed
>> from userspace. Pass on this radio index to underlying drivers as an
>> additional argument.
>>
>> A value of -1 indicates radio index is not mentioned and that the
>> configuration applies to all radio(s) of the wiphy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roopni Devanathan <quic_rdevanat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar5523/ar5523.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 5 ++--
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c | 4 +++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c | 4 +++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/main.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mld/mac80211.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mac80211.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwl8k.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7615/main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76x02.h | 2 +-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76x02_util.c | 2 +-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7915/main.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7921/main.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7996/main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt7601u/main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/purelifi/plfxlc/mac.c | 3 ++-
>> .../net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 2 +-
>> .../net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/core.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_mac80211.c | 2 ++
>> drivers/net/wireless/silabs/wfx/sta.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/wireless/silabs/wfx/sta.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/wireless/virtual/mac80211_hwsim.c | 4 +++-
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/include/net/mac80211.h b/include/net/mac80211.h
>> index 82617579d910..553bcfebe8cc 100644
>> --- a/include/net/mac80211.h
>> +++ b/include/net/mac80211.h
>> @@ -4572,7 +4572,8 @@ struct ieee80211_ops {
>> struct ieee80211_key_conf *key,
>> struct ieee80211_key_seq *seq);
>> int (*set_frag_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u32 value);
>> - int (*set_rts_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u32 value);
>> + int (*set_rts_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, int radio_id,
>> + u32 value);
>> int (*sta_add)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>> struct ieee80211_sta *sta);
>> int (*sta_remove)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>
> rather than have one patch that modifies the get_rts_threshold API, another
> that modifies the set_rts_threshold API, and future ones that will modify
> others, should we put these interface changes that affect all drivers in a
> single patch so that the individual driver maintainers only have to deal with
> this disruption once rather than for each attribute?
>
> that means enumerating all the attributes we want to maintain on a per-radio
> basis up front. do we have that list?
>
> /jeff
