Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:13944 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751165AbcDZMDM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:03:12 -0400 From: "Valo, Kalle" To: Johannes Berg CC: Ben Greear , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: remove VHT capabilities from 2.4GHz Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <87mvogy3ux.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20160426_140316_531507_057BDEAC) References: <1461244669-19871-1-git-send-email-kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> <5718EE7A.4030503@candelatech.com> <1461654272.16188.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1461654272.16188.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:04:32 +0200") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg writes: > 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. Yeah, makes sense. I'm planning to apply this soon. > 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. But we really should have this, any volunteers? :) I think it shouldn't be too hard to do so this would be a good project for someone looking for a simple, but useful, task on wireless stack. -- Kalle Valo