Message-ID: <4ab31b2407d9b2d930a2637730c4f3c0b2555c6a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] wifi: cfg80211: call reg_notifier for self managed
 wiphy from driver hint
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com>, ath11k@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 08:31:05 +0100
In-Reply-To: <bcaf5a88-76f3-c4ed-0fca-2c131d392f82@quicinc.com>
References: <20230201070327.27578-1-quic_wgong@quicinc.com>
         <bcaf5a88-76f3-c4ed-0fca-2c131d392f82@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi Wen,

> I see you have merged v2 to wireless-next.git and this v3's state is reje=
ct.

Yeah. Actually, I saw v3 only after I merged v2, but then I saw what the
change was and figured that was unnecessary anyway.

> So do you mean we should not keep hole BIT 24 in enum wiphy_flags from=
=20
> now as well as hole 11/12 in commit 8e8b41f9d8c8/ca986ad9bcd3?

Indeed. The point of the comment saying "use" was to actually, well,
_use_ the hole next time. I haven't really enforced that since I keep
forgetting (and we're nowhere near running out of bits), but yes, the
point is that you could even have used bit 11 or 12.

> If that, then backport this patch will be more complex, because the=20
> backport kernel already have
> WIPHY_FLAG_HAS_STATIC_WEP=3D BIT(24), then firstly the backport kernel=
=20
> need backport other
> patch(585b6e1304dc ("wifi: cfg80211: remove support for static WEP"))=20
> which is not really needed.

I guess it could use another bit number (such as 11) in a backport, but
I don't see that this really _needs_ to be backported? And if you're
using backports to backport the whole wifi stack then this isn't even a
question since it all comes in backports.

johannes