Received: by 2002:a25:ef43:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w3csp219984ybm; Thu, 28 May 2020 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGKuqN/xrjvRqWi0ipPYYmx7E2vm50PANN2YKRKTgwJdlmSchwOlMATpMVraOrO0BAIObc X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6997:: with SMTP id i23mr1900224ejr.347.1590651799457; Thu, 28 May 2020 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1590651799; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=utafT7qwjGx10eXObUaxRFma98muKqYiD/G7G/nt71EZUX4moiD+CIn9vpqvibhpQ5 hNuZdB241CdseGnkPXN9ZrtSn8f0L2iBu0aZat3S2MNnPEanjYgn/DxTtcGWSmHLTIyY Y4zDEBV0j64EllZovLZbcFT0jybW5vTaMcdQk+cYv2L4gCnGPbIcdN5ExG13HktDqAg9 CDPx5M6pP7N60ckvhWCh/++CS4tY+7Gsv7dExM9SUFhBAps68q8Z1HwMQFgGsv4+0SG9 M+tgbOv9pq40pZ5/9oVrHE8gnfNetz+Er29To0kQgGUHpSwXDpHZkQSI8+g/W0Hv2Yth Y7Vw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject :message-id; bh=r+10KGGQaB2c8d82qLhRHGUu0nUY8ixRLHv+r5rnJzU=; b=lPEV6JlQ9u6KcPkLa6wQ0VqtdzyIGsh7J71F1wl7nOKHPnohkUYaVE0FRKfeLWamix qTMYAwjxzcE1HcVOj0y0gI7mfsiEtYe2eYWbSq6MVxOWbTCGAsI7wqZpqs+QkHhsZtPF tYxhs30PWjQ1jEr/st4dMEByt003fEzvLe9Z8OPjjFP7yZ8r5HGFxGUZGfy37H/v4pgF OIUdFnkVcRsNiU4TVL4Bm/FPLwoMgeTCsGOJ1JytP3sscUc1C926sGd7kt69+npdGhDI Ab6OLxYU4eBbfwrjXEctldZB8wNslC7eC0gc933QCwz+ZfdRceRYhBy1WKBBr9S+2kGs MgOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si3204887edn.148.2020.05.28.00.42.55; Thu, 28 May 2020 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726469AbgE1Hlw (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 28 May 2020 03:41:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35172 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725601AbgE1Hlw (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 03:41:52 -0400 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB482C05BD1E for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 00:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jeDAh-004iR7-Rs; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:41:47 +0200 Message-ID: <6a606d4e32d6eb00b33f5ce8ad44a71994640c7d.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] cfg80211: use only HE capability to set prohibited flags in 6 GHz From: Johannes Berg To: Rajkumar Manoharan Cc: kvalo@codeaurora.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org, Vamsi Krishna , linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:41:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <0fa1c07811796add4a6a23c81cbafe41@codeaurora.org> References: <1589399105-25472-1-git-send-email-rmanohar@codeaurora.org> <7f2a2a382c42b7285b9ad1eeac4e8060bc8d897a.camel@sipsolutions.net> <0fa1c07811796add4a6a23c81cbafe41@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.2 (3.36.2-1.fc32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 16:32 -0700, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote: > > > However, looking at D6.0, maybe we do need some checks of the HE > > capability? > > > > > + if (!(he_cap->he_cap_elem.phy_cap_info[0] & > > > + IEEE80211_HE_PHY_CAP0_CHANNEL_WIDTH_SET_40MHZ_80MHZ_IN_5G)) > > > + return false; > > > > Looks like even D6.0 still changed something in this area... > > > > Evidently our patch just assumed that in 6 GHz all of this is > > supported, > > but the spec doesn't support that theory :-) > > > IIUC the same bits are applicable for both 5 GHz & 6 GHz. I understand > the macro doesn't capture both. Yeah, I think you're right. I looked at D6.0 (though there seems to be D6.1?) but I couldn't quite > > Can you respin this with D6.0 taken into account? > > > Let me check again and respin after your series. Does it sound good? Ok. I'll include our more limited code in the series for now then, and we can make changes to that after we're on the same page. Thanks, johannes