Re: [PATCH wireless 4/4] wifi: mt76: mt7925: fix RCPI chain 3 mask in sta_poll RSSI extraction

[Ben Greear]

On 4/7/26 09:00, Joshua Klinesmith wrote:
> On 4/7/26 11:25, Ben Greear wrote:
> > How much of this is AI driven?  As far as I know, mt7925 is a 2x2 chipset
> > at max.  So while the patch may be correct, it may also not matter in practice
> > and at least may not need to be backported into stable.
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> Please accept my apologies. You are correct that the mt7925 is a 2x2
> chipset, so this does not have a practical impact and should not have
> been tagged for stable. I did not read the documentation in its
> entirety before submitting, and that is on me.
>
> I will be much more careful and diligent with testing and review going forward.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Joshua

I am more concerned about the trickier patches that you have been posting
that is utilizing work from upstream vendor code.  How much of that is pure
AI driven?  How much testing has been done to see if there are actual stability
or performance improvements when testing actual hardware?

Thanks,
Ben

> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 11:25 AM Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 4/6/26 16:47, Joshua Klinesmith wrote:
> > > The fourth receive chain RCPI uses GENMASK(31, 14), an 18-bit mask
> > > spanning bits 14-31. It should be GENMASK(31, 24), an 8-bit mask
> > > for the fourth byte, consistent with the other three chains and
> > > with the RCPI3 definitions used elsewhere in the driver
> > > (MT_PRXV_RCPI3 and MT_TXS7_F0_RCPI_3 both use GENMASK(31, 24)).
> >
> > Hello Joshua,
> >
> > How much of this is AI driven?  As far as I know, mt7925 is a 2x2 chipset
> > at max.  So while the patch may be correct, it may also not matter in practice
> > and at least may not need to be backported into stable.  If it is a minor
> > cleanup that doesn't actually matter, that should be described more clearly
> > in the commit message?
> >
> > Some of your patches are touching tricky parts of the code and making
> > subtle comparisons against how the vendor's driver is written.  How well has
> > this been tested and reviewed by a knowledgeable human in general?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ben


--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com