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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:30:30 -0700
From:   Thomas Pedersen <thomas@adapt-ip.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] add support for S1G association
In-Reply-To: <da06b5074a5d40d811a67656048f3afa262ff134.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20200831205600.21058-1-thomas@adapt-ip.com>
 <da06b5074a5d40d811a67656048f3afa262ff134.camel@sipsolutions.net>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.7
Message-ID: <c00bc0f836b1fc82bce9e83f7975d092@adapt-ip.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-09-06 09:04, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 13:55 -0700, Thomas Pedersen wrote:
>> 
>> Note the mac80211_hwsim S1G support introduces a regression in a few
>> hostap hwsim tests. This is because when processing the reported 
>> bands,
>> hostap assumes freq < 4000 is 11b, and the actual 11b/g band is
>> overwritten by the S1G band info. Though it does count as a userspace
>> regression, I'm not sure there is much to do about it besides apply a
>> small patch to hostapd which treats freq < 2000 as an unknown band.
>> 
>> After the hostap workaround
>> (https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/hostap/2020-August/038748.html),
>> these patches continue to pass the hwsim tests as well as HEAD.
> 
> 
> That sounds like we could "hack around" it by sending the S1G data
> first, and then the 2.4 GHz, so the latter overwrites it on broken
> versions?

Yes that could work.

> Not sure it's worth it though, I'd say it depends a bit on what real
> hardware plans are?
> 
> I mean, if it's only hwsim for now ... who cares? And if it's going to
> be special hardware that only does S1G, then also meh, you need newer
> versions to support it, big deal.

AFAIK there are no multi-band S1G chips. The initial focus (from WFA) 
seems
to be industrial IOT.

> But if OTOH a commonly used chipset like e.g. ath9k or ath10k will get
> S1G support, then that'd be more relevant?

-- 
thomas