Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4864-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <4940b6cf-a68d-4799-ccf3-f90dcc105e3e@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:40:02 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath12k: use correct flag field for 320 MHz
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
CC: <ath12k@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240314204651.11075-1-quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
 <87sf0nczca.fsf@kernel.org> <878r2fctng.fsf@kernel.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Aloka Dixit <quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <878r2fctng.fsf@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/18/2024 10:54 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> Aloka Dixit <quic_alokad@quicinc.com> writes:
>>
>>> WMI_PEER_EXT_320MHZ (0x2) is defined as an extended flag, replace
>>> peer_flags by peer_flags_ext while sending peer data.
>>>
>>> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.0.1-00029-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6734cf9b4cc7 ("wifi: ath12k: peer assoc for 320 MHz")
>>> Signed-off-by: Aloka Dixit <quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
>>
>> What does this fix from user's point of view? Does it mean that 320 MHz
>> chanels were broken before and this commit fixes that? I can ammend the
>> commit message.
> 
> And what about WCN7850? Does it work the same?
> 

Hi Kalle,
320 MHz association was broken. It was a re-basing error while sending 
the original patch because the correct field was added during testing, 
still used that way internally too. I have not tested WCN7850 on this 
patch but yes will require the same field. Current code was setting  QOS 
bit instead of 320MHz.