Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:33862 "EHLO mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751863AbdAHPDT (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2017 10:03:19 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f66.google.com with SMTP id 3so61205579oih.1 for ; Sun, 08 Jan 2017 07:03:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <117c6355-a612-1797-a1ae-225f68543568@broadcom.com> References: <20170107203605.24866-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <20170107203605.24866-2-zajec5@gmail.com> <117c6355-a612-1797-a1ae-225f68543568@broadcom.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:03:18 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20170108_160323_743125_DFA4D84E) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] brcmfmac: setup wiphy bands after registering it first To: Arend Van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , Pieter-Paul Giesberts , Franky Lin , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" , =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8 January 2017 at 14:00, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 7-1-2017 21:36, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: >> From: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki >> >> During bands setup we disable all channels that firmware doesn't support >> in the current regulatory setup. If we do this before wiphy_register >> it will result in copying set flags (including IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED) >> to the orig_flags which is supposed to be persistent. We don't want this >> as regulatory change may result in enabling some channels. We shouldn't >> mess with orig_flags then (by changing them or ignoring them) so it's >> better to just take care of their proper values. >> >> This patch cleanups code a bit (by taking orig_flags more seriously) and >> allows further improvements like disabling really unavailable channels. >> We will need that e.g. if some frequencies should be disabled for good >> due to hardware setup (design). > > I think this and previous patch are too dependent and prefer to have > them in a single patch. Despite that for both: > > Acked-by: Arend van Spriel This time to make sure I can be easily understood I decided to use two smaller patches & describe each of them with all the details that came to my mind. I also made sure (and described that) that applying only 1/2 won't break anything (we never wan't to break potential bisecting process). I can work on merging (squashing) these 2 patches but then I need to rework commit messages & I'll risk someone will say my description isn't clear enough or my patch is too complex... If there isn't a real problem (and maybe having 2 patches makes following changes more easily) maybe let's stick to this patchset? --=20 Rafa=C5=82