On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:00:40PM +0000, Valo, Kalle wrote: > Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 06:57:52PM +0000, Valo, Kalle wrote: > >> Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> >> > +void ath10k_sta_update_rx_duration(struct ath10k *ar, > >> >> > + struct ath10k_fw_stats *stats) > >> >> > +{ > >> >> > + struct ath10k_fw_file *fw_file = &ar->normal_mode_fw.fw_file; > >> >> > + > >> >> > + if (fw_file->wmi_op_version < ATH10K_FW_WMI_OP_VERSION_10_4) > >> >> > + ath10k_sta_update_stats_rx_duration(ar, &stats->peers); > >> >> > + else > >> >> > + ath10k_sta_update_extd_stats_rx_duration(ar, > >> >> > + > >> >> > &stats->peers_extd); > >> >> > +} > >> >> > >> >> _Ideally_ wmi_op_version should be used only in ath10k_wmi_attach() and > >> >> nowhere else. Isn't there any other way to detect this scenario? For > >> >> example, what if you store stats_id to struct ath10k_fw_stats and do > >> >> something like this: > >> >> > >> >> if (stats->stats_id & WMI_10_4_STAT_PEER_EXTD) > >> >> ath10k_sta_update_extd_stats_rx_duration(ar, > >> >> &stats->peers_extd); > >> >> else > >> >> ath10k_sta_update_stats_rx_duration(ar, &stats->peers); > >> >> > >> >> Would that work? > >> > > >> > [shafi] I am also thinking to re-use (ar->fw_stats_req_mask & > >> > WMI_10_4_STAT_PEER_EXTD) > >> > it might work, but will it conflict vdev stats WMI_STAT_VDEV (though its > >> > not currently > >> > supported for 10.2 ) > >> > >> Can you describe more how they conflict? > > > > [shafi] 'WMI_STAT_VDEV' and 'WMI_10_4_STAT_PEER_EXTD' are having the same > > value > > BIT(3), though as of now we are only 'WMI_10_4_STAT_PEER_EXTD' for 10.4 > > Ah. But that's easy to solve, for example you could use a bool instead. > [shafi] sure thanks will do the same, i had a similar change in my mind as well !
_______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
