Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <91d3b826accb22194c9fa3134cd1f3137950e863.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] nl80211: add support to send EHT capabilities from
 userspace
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Veerendranath Jakkam <quic_vjakkam@quicinc.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, quic_vikram@quicinc.com,
        quic_alokad@quicinc.com, quic_jiad@quicinc.com,
        quic_periyasa@quicinc.com, quic_msinada@quicinc.com,
        quic_srirrama@quicinc.com
Date:   Fri, 04 Feb 2022 15:43:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <382a29fe-dea3-7d32-2aeb-16ba18e9da28@quicinc.com>
References: <1640163883-12696-1-git-send-email-quic_vjakkam@quicinc.com>
         <1640163883-12696-4-git-send-email-quic_vjakkam@quicinc.com>
         <5ede1e1ad04b6359eafb658e827abf6a8343355f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <0644274d-7a9f-642c-eef2-02c662a5adcc@quicinc.com>
         <0c0ba8cebb877384172b5bd314cbbbb035d1f348.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <382a29fe-dea3-7d32-2aeb-16ba18e9da28@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.3 (3.42.3-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-02-04 at 20:07 +0530, Veerendranath Jakkam wrote:
> 
> There are some references for NSS > 8, ex: Table 9-33a, P802.11be_D1.3 
> hence I used 81.

Right, the spec confuses me. In a lot of places it reserves enough space
for 8 < NSS <= 16, but then it has e.g. Table 36-40 with 4 bits, but
saying "for up to 8 spatial streams" (MU-MIMO). And even for OFDMA it
states in a lot of places that the maximum is only 8.

> Please let me know if you would like this to be changed to 51
> 
Nah, don't worry. I think it probably doesn't even really *matter*, we
can safely leave it at 81 anyway (I had evidently miscalculated as 80
before, so I was confused).

We also already had some patches in this area, and I'm just working on a
combination - e.g. in your first patch I don't like the use of FIELD_GET
so much, preferring uXX_get_bits(), but Ilan already had patches here
that deal with that.

For many of the other patches, Ilan and you arrived at a literally bit-
identical version of things!

So I think I'm going to pick a couple of things from him and a couple of
things from you, and send out a combined series. Perhaps later today, if
I manage to get it done.

Also in your later nl80211 patch I'm thinking we should combine the
HE/EHT GI settings etc., there's no point duplicating all the enums,
though we might want to do some renaming.

Sounds OK?

johannes