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;
Message-ID: <1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows
 5850-5895 immediately
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        bkil <b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com>
Cc:     wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:06:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YOdVFE51Wbxr80Qf@ubuntu-x1>
References: <CAPuHQ=GbacSTgyimkJtx1FXp319Df=LdrPQZ6ZDnPQ_JVXueKw@mail.gmail.com>
         <10ffaa74a0779b7c7047de70cb1db7dfb0000022.1625068999.git.b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com>
         <YOdVFE51Wbxr80Qf@ubuntu-x1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Uh, sorry for the delay.
> 
> The first is that it seems I forgot to test build this patch before I
> pushed it. The PTMP-ONLY flag isn't allowed by db2fw.py. This was done
> by Johannes for reasons which aren't explained, so maybe he can shed
> some light on it. The flag doesn't appear to be used by the kernel or
> hostapd, so maybe it was deprecated long ago. Anyway, I've pushed a
> change to remove this flag.

I don't remember, but quite likely we decided it was just not something
we could implement properly or so, and never supported it? Sorry.

Clearly the kernel does nothing at all with NL80211_RRF_PTMP_ONLY.

> The second problem is more serious. I thought that we could allow 160
> MHz bandwidth across two AUTO-BW ranges too small for this bandwidth,
> but it turns out that the kernel rejects any rules with a bandwidth
> greater than the frequency range of the rule. I'm not sure what we can
> do about this. Even if the kernel were changed to support allowing
> greater bandwidths across combined ranges, we're going to have a
> backwards compatibility problem with older kernels.

OTOH, doesn't AUTO-BW basically ignore the max bandwidth for a given
range anyway, seeing the code in reg_get_max_bandwidth_from_range()? So
just keeping it at 80 with AUTO-BW would still result in 160 being
usable? I think?

johannes