linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ath9k: turn on btcoex

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <9AF82E83-2EBE-4076-BAFA-EEA44B1DB423@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:33:56 +0800
From:   Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To:     Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: turn on btcoex_enable as default

at 12:15, Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> wrote:

>
>
>> On 10 Feb 2018, at 10:05 PM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-02-10 14:56, Kai Heng Feng wrote:
>>>> On 9 Feb 2018, at 3:16 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> Sure, but we have to make sure that we don't create regressions on
>>>> existing systems. For example, did you test this with any system which
>>>> don't support btcoex? (just asking, haven't tested this myself)
>>>
>>> No not really, but I will definitely test it.
>>> The only module I have that uses ath9k is Dell’s DW1707.
>>> How do I check if it support btcoex or not?
>> I just reviewed the code again, and I am sure that we cannot merge this
>> patch. Enabling the btcoex parameter makes the driver enable a whole
>> bunch of code starting timers, listening to some GPIOs, etc.
>>
>> On non-btcoex systems, some of those GPIOs might be floating or even
>> connected to different things, which could cause a lot of undefined
>> behavior.
>>
>> This is simply too big a risk, so there absolutely needs to be a
>> whitelist for systems that need this, otherwise it has to remain
>> disabled by default.
>
> So what information can we use to whitelist btcoex chips?
> Can we get btcoex support status at ath9k probing?

Sorry for bringing this up again.

Is DMI based match an acceptable approach for ath9k?

Kai-Heng

>
> Kai-Heng
>
>> - Felix