Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:47598 "EHLO mail2.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751313AbdBMTmI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:42:08 -0500 Subject: Re: VHT 160Mhz and nss related config. To: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , ath10k References: <0082a9e3-83f3-9bc3-af43-b890b91cfd93@candelatech.com> <1486969571.5142.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1487014657.19813.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Ben Greear Message-ID: <0f30d7bf-b710-10a8-91e6-bfd75457cf75@candelatech.com> (sfid-20170213_204211_661407_45AC3B75) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:42:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1487014657.19813.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/13/2017 11:37 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >>> This was recently added to the VHT capabilities in the spec, see >>> Table 9-250 in 802.11-2016. > >> I don't have that spec...maybe you could post a patch that adds that >> flag and/or other fields to the appropriate header files? I can >> attempt to add support to ath10k after that... > > We're planning to, but it's not the most important thing on my list > right now ... I'll check where that's at now. > > I can't even easily explain it, since it's really complicated. So, think it is worthwhile to use the max-rx-rate as a proxy until the 'real' spec is implemented? If 2x2 160Mhz is super complicated, and yields no useful throughput improvement, then likely it will be a long time before someone implements it properly I'd guess. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com