Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5295-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <c6891df6-0b34-43d6-b931-16a3da577407@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:36:21 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] wifi: mac80211: Add EHT UL MU-MIMO flag in
 ieee80211_bss_conf
Content-Language: en-US
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, <ath12k@lists.infradead.org>
CC: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240325201031.10837-1-quic_pradeepc@quicinc.com>
 <20240325201031.10837-2-quic_pradeepc@quicinc.com>
 <8efc258b698acd504c1fc699d026b906bf383894.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <b4fb2e9f-b7af-42da-be97-9ae1560ebad2@quicinc.com>
 <a313c313ab41325843092dc8445386dd802ed115.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From: Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu <quic_pradeepc@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <a313c313ab41325843092dc8445386dd802ed115.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 3/26/2024 11:32 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 11:31 -0700, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote:
>>
>> On 3/26/2024 6:00 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 13:10 -0700, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote:
>>>> Add flag for Full Bandwidth UL MU-MIMO for EHT. This is utilized
>>>> to pass EHT MU-MIMO configurations from user space to driver in
>>>> AP mode.
>>>
>>> This ^^ doesn't match this:
>>>
>>>> + * @eht_80mhz_full_bw_ul_mumimo: does this BSS support the reception (AP) or transmission
>>>> + *	(non-AP STA) of an EHT TB PPDU on an RU that spans the entire PPDU
>>>> + *	bandwidth
>>>>
>>>
>>> which doesn't match the implementation ... Wouldn't be a bad idea to
>>> actually do what it documents though, I guess?
>>>
>> Thanks Johannes for review.
>> can you please help clarify what you meant by "actually do what it
>> documents"? This will help me to amend next revision appropriately.
>>
>> I have tried to describe what this flag is trying to represent.
> 
> Yes but ... you document AP and non-AP STA, but only implemented it for
> AP?
> 
> johannes
Sure. Thanks. will fix this in next revision.