Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-8989-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <199dbb00-424c-4827-ae9a-0e657918fc06@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:15:52 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath12k: fix legacy peer association due to missing
 HT or 6 GHz capabilities
Content-Language: en-US
To: Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu <quic_pradeepc@quicinc.com>,
        <ath12k@lists.infradead.org>
CC: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aditya Kumar Singh
	<quic_adisi@quicinc.com>,
        Zachary Smith <dr.z.smith@gmail.com>
References: <20240612225336.2303119-1-quic_pradeepc@quicinc.com>
 <760d99d1-c709-43b5-9d15-c2a0fef98b66@quicinc.com>
 <a7921a28-6f36-40b4-9d56-284b2c2684a6@quicinc.com>
From: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7921a28-6f36-40b4-9d56-284b2c2684a6@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/13/2024 11:59 AM, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/13/2024 8:42 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On 6/12/2024 3:53 PM, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote:
>>> Currently SMPS configuration failed when the Information
>>> Elements (IEs) did not contain HT or 6 GHz capabilities. This
>>> caused legacy peer association to fail as legacy peers do not
>>> have HT or 6 GHz capabilities. Fix this by not returning an
>>> error when SMPS configuration fails due to the absence of HT
>>> or 6 GHz capabilities.
>>>
>>> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.0.1-00029-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
>>>
>>> Fixes: f0e61dc7ecf9 ("wifi: ath12k: refactor SMPS configuration")
>>> Reported-by: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Per checkpatch:
>> WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
>> #17:
>> Reported-by: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Is there a separate public bug report from Aditya?
> Hi Jeff,
> No, this was internal report and does not have weblink associated with 
> it. Also, do not want to ignore reportee.

I'm unsure what do do here since there is a requirement that an acknowledged
reporter have a public link to the bug report.

Note that normally internally reported issues are not acknowledged in this manner.