Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-1044-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <abf0d4355bd0dab86119984067f42394a70f35c0.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] wifi: cfg80211: reg: Support P2P operation on
 DFS channels
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>, Miri Korenblit
	 <miriam.rachel.korenblit@intel.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Andrei Otcheretianski
 <andrei.otcheretianski@intel.com>, Gregory Greenman
 <gregory.greenman@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 23:05:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <45a96faa-013f-4c2c-95ba-191709324607@quicinc.com>
References: 
	<20231220133549.bdfb8a9c7c54.I973563562969a27fea8ec5685b96a3a47afe142f@changeid>
	 <45a96faa-013f-4c2c-95ba-191709324607@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2023-12-19 at 14:03 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 12/20/2023 3:41 AM, Miri Korenblit wrote:
> > From: Andrei Otcheretianski <andrei.otcheretianski@intel.com>
> >=20
> > FCC-594280 D01 Section B.3 allows peer-to-peer and ad hoc devices to
> > operate on DFS channels while they operate under the control of a
> > concurrent DFS master. For example, it is possible to have a P2P GO on =
a
> > DFS channel as long as BSS connection is active on the same channel.
> > Allow such operation by adding additional regulatory flags to indicate
> > DFS concurrent channels and capable devices. Add the required
> > relaxations in DFS regulatory checks.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Otcheretianski <andrei.otcheretianski@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Miri Korenblit <miriam.rachel.korenblit@intel.com>
>=20
> Curious if there will be a companion change to wireless-regdb.git to
> allow this flag to be set in db.txt?
>=20
> Looks like we haven't been very good about adding support for new
> nl80211_reg_rule_flags to dbparse.py.
>=20
Yeah, we really haven't, and it seems that nobody really cares any more,
since all the new devices have self-managed regulatory? Certainly that's
true for our device, so even if we were to add a flag and all to
everything related to the regdb, it'd have no effect for Intel NICs. So
the interest is pretty low ...

johannes