wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct scan_req_params

The is a layout mismatch between the bitfield representing scan_flags in
struct scan_req_params & the bits as defined in the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
Lets fix it by making the struct match the #defines.

I tried to correct it by making the struct match the #define and it 
worked for WMI_SCAN_FLAG_FORCE_ACTIVE_ON_DFS / scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn
so I'm assuming this is the right thing to do.

Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.7.0.1-01744-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Escande <nico.escande@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

On Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 7:38 PM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/27/2023 10:05 AM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> > The is a layout mismatch between the bitfield representing scan_flags in
> > struct scan_req_params & the bits as defined in the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
> > Lets fix it by making the struct match the #defines.
> > 
> > I tried to correct it by making the struct match the #define and it 
> > worked for WMI_SCAN_FLAG_FORCE_ACTIVE_ON_DFS / scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn
> > so I'm assuming this is the right thing to do.
> > 
> > Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.7.0.1-01744-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Escande <nico.escande@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > index 100bb816b592..0b4e6c2f7860 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > @@ -3348,17 +3348,17 @@ struct scan_req_params {
> >  			    scan_f_filter_prb_req:1,
> >  			    scan_f_bypass_dfs_chn:1,
> >  			    scan_f_continue_on_err:1,
> > +			    scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> > +			    scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_offchan_mgmt_tx:1,
> >  			    scan_f_offchan_data_tx:1,
> > -			    scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> >  			    scan_f_capture_phy_err:1,
> >  			    scan_f_strict_passive_pch:1,
> >  			    scan_f_half_rate:1,
> >  			    scan_f_quarter_rate:1,
> > -			    scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_add_rand_seq_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_en_ie_whitelist_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_forced:1,
>
> You are convoluting two different data structures.

So maybe I'm missing something and please correct me where I'm wrong.

> struct scan_req_params is used to represent a scan request within the
> host driver. This does not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
>

In mac.c when we start a scan with ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() for example we first
initialize a struct scan_req_params with ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init().
ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init() by itself does use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros

	arg->scan_flags |= WMI_SCAN_CHAN_STAT_EVENT;

Then later on in ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() we either use the bitfield like with

	arg->scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe = 1;

or we directly modify scan_flags like with

	arg->scan_flags |= WMI_SCAN_FLAG_PASSIVE;

So is it not expected to use those flags there ?

> struct wmi_start_scan_cmd is used to represent the scan request command
> sent to firmware. This struct uses the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros to fill some
> members of this struct in ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags().

Indeed ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags() copies from struct
scan_req_params to struct wmi_start_scan_cmd but this time we do not use 
scan_flags directly, only ever use the bitfield that is in the same union
as scan_flags

So having the bitfield out of sync does cause the struct wmi_start_scan_cmd that
gets sent to the driver to not reflect the desired state set in scan_req_params.

> So your change has no effect on the driver operation and incorrectly
> tries to foist the firmware definition upon the host internal
> representation.

So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.

>
> So NAK to this patch.
>
> /jeff

On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
[...]
> > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
> > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
> > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.
>
> IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct and
> only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks
> except when filling the firmware structure.
>
> But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to
> give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may
> have a different opinion on this.
>
> /jeff

No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything.
As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I only care
that this gets resolved.

On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> [...]
> > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
> > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
> > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.
> >
> > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct and
> > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks
> > except when filling the firmware structure.
> >
> > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to
> > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may
> > have a different opinion on this.
> >
> > /jeff
>
> No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything.
> As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I only care
> that this gets resolved.

Hi Kalle/Jeff,

Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ?
Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using the
bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to
their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wmi.

"Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote:
>> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
>> > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
>> > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.
>> >
>> > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct and
>> > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks
>> > except when filling the firmware structure.
>> >
>> > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to
>> > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may
>> > have a different opinion on this.
>> >
>> > /jeff
>>
>> No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything.
>> As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I only care
>> that this gets resolved.
>
> Hi Kalle/Jeff,
>
> Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ?

Sorry, too many patches...

> Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using the
> bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to
> their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wmi.

Yeah, I only took a quick glimpse but Jeff's proposal does make sense.