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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <14722778-dda0-cb9f-8647-892493d94a5c@leemhuis.info>
 <2026016246ef719605c9932feeb56b105833593b.camel@intel.com>
 <CAMfi-DTwX2nvP58FRb6NaGMyWO0SBo9W=Fpdtr=XfNRzkqAwHw@mail.gmail.com> <b5e9c8911a46802ddb017554f266c92a7a0b2605.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b5e9c8911a46802ddb017554f266c92a7a0b2605.camel@intel.com>
From:   Dave Chiluk <chiluk@ubuntu.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:37:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMfi-DQYU3WQk8x-GFieexEE_enRDe4J0AzyZHk9rtRykpUEnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [regression] Bug 216753 - 6e 6 ghz bands are disabled since 5.16
 on intel ax211
To:     "Greenman, Gregory" <gregory.greenman@intel.com>
Cc:     "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>,
        "regressions@leemhuis.info" <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        "regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "marcel@holtmann.org" <marcel@holtmann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 12:15 AM Greenman, Gregory
<gregory.greenman@intel.com> wrote:
>
> I'll try to explain, the problem here is not technical. After some
> internal checks, it appears that we (wifi driver) aren't allowed to
> decide if 6E should be enabled or not. Because of the legal restrictions,
> OEM should make this decision and enable/disable 6E in the BIOS. This
> commit only gets the value from the BIOS and configures the firmware
> accordingly. So, unfortunately, legal restriction is the reason we cannot
> revert/overwrite 6E enablement...
>
Thank you Gregory, I've been reading between the lines, and this is
pretty much what I expected you to say.  So in the past when
OEMs/systems manufacturers have been irresponsible/inept like this we
have implemented flags to force ignore the values coming out of the
bios.  As it's now obvious that the problem here is a legal/regulatory
issue, I'd hope that having a force flag would be acceptable from a
that perspective.  I'm no lawyer, but I expect once a user decides to
explicitly set a force flag to ignore the bios values I'd suspect the
responsibility would shift from the manufacturers and back onto the
user.

Would such a patch be theoretically acceptable?  If so I'll write up a
patch to do this and submit it next week hopefully.