Message-ID: <30e87756-ddfc-4581-4ff9-98b2068a3808@quicinc.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:04:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] wifi: cfg80211: call reg_notifier for self managed
 wiphy from driver hint
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>
CC:     <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230201070327.27578-1-quic_wgong@quicinc.com>
 <bcaf5a88-76f3-c4ed-0fca-2c131d392f82@quicinc.com>
 <4ab31b2407d9b2d930a2637730c4f3c0b2555c6a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ab31b2407d9b2d930a2637730c4f3c0b2555c6a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/15/2023 3:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Wen,
>
>> I see you have merged v2 to wireless-next.git and this v3's state is reject.
> 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
>> 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
>> backport kernel already have
>> WIPHY_FLAG_HAS_STATIC_WEP= BIT(24), then firstly the backport kernel
>> need backport other
>> patch(585b6e1304dc ("wifi: cfg80211: remove support for static WEP"))
>> 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.

If use another bit such as 11 while backport this patch, then it will 
easily lead mismatch/error

and increase difficulty of maintain code.

I need backport this patch soon.

> johannes