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

[Joshua Klinesmith]

On 4/7/26 12:31, Ben Greear wrote:
> 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?

Hi Ben,

To be straightforward: my workflow involves pulling GitHub issues into
AI prompts along with firmware analysis tooling to identify potential
fixes. I have an MT6000 available, but I have not been doing thorough
on-hardware testing before submitting. That is a gap I need to close.

I will hold off on submitting further patches to the mt76 driver until
I have a proper test workflow in place and can verify changes on real
hardware.

I appreciate you raising this directly.

Joshua

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 12:31 PM Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>