Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:33398 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750788AbcHBELW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 00:11:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mac80211: mesh: fixed HT ies in beacon template To: Johannes Berg References: <20160713200755.26839-1-yanivma@ti.com> <40a34537-486e-a466-5a7e-e253f19d81c3@gmail.com> <1470045822.3389.24.camel@sipsolutions.net> <75fef3ce-41a6-5845-e9be-d7ff052a07da@gmail.com> Cc: Yaniv Machani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Meirav Kama , "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org From: Masashi Honma Message-ID: <1c2d3cfc-b7fd-c8fd-4f74-14dd3aa3076e@gmail.com> (sfid-20160802_061150_191787_D40E0B10) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:59:04 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <75fef3ce-41a6-5845-e9be-d7ff052a07da@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On 2016年08月01日 19:03, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> But why is that behaviour *correct*? We still support 40 MHz bandwidth >> things, we just don't use them if we disable HT40. Or do you mean difference between "hardware capability" and "software capability" ? Do you think IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 bit should be 1 if the hardware capable of HT40 even though HT40 is disabled by wpa_supplicant/hostapd ? I have tested with hostapd. I compared these 2 configfiles. hostapd0.conf ht_capab=[HT40-] hostapd1.conf #ht_capab=[HT40-] The IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 bit in beacon was below. hostapd0.conf IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 = 1 hostapd1.conf IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 = 0 So I think the bit should be zero if disabled also for mesh peer. Masashi Honma.