Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
CC:     <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 20:38:25 +0200
Message-ID: <16aeb2310e8.2764.9b12b7fc0a3841636cfb5e919b41b954@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <df53f969297fea1f3c8101cd2c1571a957985d2a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <1558353645-18119-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
 <df53f969297fea1f3c8101cd2c1571a957985d2a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.20.0-1451 (build: 102000001)
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] nl80211: add 6GHz band support
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On May 24, 2019 1:56:43 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> Hi Arend,
>
> On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 14:00 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> In 802.11ax D4.0 a new band has been proposed. This series contains
>> changes to cfg80211 for supporting this band. With 2GHz and 5GHz there
>> was no overlap in channel number. However, this new band has channel
>> numbers with a range from 1 up to 253.
>
> At the wireless workshop in Prague, we looked at this and sort of
> decided that it'd be better to put all the 6 GHz channels into the 5 GHz
> "band" in nl80211, to avoid all the "5 || 6" since they're really the
> same except for very specific places like scanning.

Would have liked to be there, but attending is no longer an option for me. 
We now have two autistic, non-verbal children and I am the primary 
caregiver for the oldest because my wife can't handle him. Guess I should 
have checked the workshop notes before working on this :-) Do you have URL?

Agree that most functional requirements for 6 GHz are same as 5 GHz. There 
are some 6 GHz specifics about beaconing as well.

> The channel numbers problem came up, of course, but for nl80211 it's not
> that relevant since we deal with frequencies only, and we thought inside
> the kernel it'd be better to disambiguate them with operating classes,
> where needed - only few places really deal with channel numbers to start
> with.
>
> Do you have any reason to think that it's better as a separate band enum

No specific reason. Just that the few cfg80211-based drivers tend to use 
channel number as hwvalue.

> (which I notice you put before 60 GHz thus breaking the API/ABI :P)?

Right. Now I feel wet behind the ears :-p

I will go with 6G being additional 5G range and see how that works for us.

Gr. AvS