Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:42709 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbcDZHEl (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 03:04:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1461654272.16188.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160426_090444_956799_23A91988) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: remove VHT capabilities from 2.4GHz From: Johannes Berg To: Ben Greear , Kalle Valo , ath10k@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:04:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5718EE7A.4030503@candelatech.com> (sfid-20160421_171514_734039_B1F3CF8F) References: <1461244669-19871-1-git-send-email-kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> <5718EE7A.4030503@candelatech.com> (sfid-20160421_171514_734039_B1F3CF8F) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 08:15 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > The thing is, it actually works just fine with the patch I posted > to fix mac80211, and at any rate, even if the mac80211 patch isn't > applied, the ath10k driver works just fine in HT mode. This patch has no implications on HT, and I wasn't planning on applying the mac80211 patch. As I said, I have no objections to doing the (Broadcom) vendor specific IEs for "VHT" in 2.4 GHz band, but I don't think we should advertise the spec IEs when they're explicitly specified to be used only in the 5.2 GHz band. johannes