Re: [PATCH 2/3] cfg80211: validate RU puncturing bitmap

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 17:09 -0700, Aloka Dixit wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 5:58 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > Are you thinking about (separately?) configuring the OFDMA puncturing?
> > Which spec-wise you do per PPDU, controlled by the AP (trigger frame), I
> > think?
> > 
> 
> Need to study the spec again so not any time soon.
> Will send a new series if it is needed.

OK.

> > > >      1. The DSP/radio can receive punctured PPDUs if listening on the non
> > > >         punctured channel.
> > > >         
> > > >         At least for our device that's not true, not sure about ath12k? It
> > > >         seems you have a per-peer puncturing configuration even, but that
> > > >         seems odd, and it's always just set to the vif puncturing
> > > >         configuration.
> > > >         
> > > 
> > > Yes, same vif puncturing pattern is assigned for all the peers
> > > associated on that vif, but firmware requires it to be sent separately
> > > for each peer.
> > 
> > OK, thanks.
> > 
> > What if it differs for different vifs?
> > 
> 
> So far that use-case hasn't come up but I'm confirming if we really need 
> that support or not. Will get back you.

Thanks.
(Also reminder, but yeah, I've also been busy otherwise.)

> > > If we do end up moving the bitmap back to chandef, we may need some
> > > changes, because as I said above, when I originally added it I hadn't
> > > thought of different bitmaps for each vif.
> > > But can you give an example of what you would consider as compatible
> > > channel contexts and what would be incompatible? I'm not clear on that part.
> > 
> > Easy example:
> > 
> >   * control channel 36, 80 MHz, puncturing bitmap 0x2
> >   * control channel 36, 80 MHz, puncturing bitmap 0
> > 
> > Contrary to what I thought and said before, I want to treat these as
> > *not* compatible now, and allocate two channel contexts if I end up
> > having to do this.

> I'm okay if you want to move it back to chandef, in fact I myself can 
> send a series for it.

I'm planning to start working on it now/soon.

> As far as two contexts are concerned, sounds like you don't need that 
> for your use-case. And I will confirm if we need it or not.

Not sure what you mean - I do in fact want two channel contexts for
this?

But please check if you need that or not, as discussed above - this is
the "different puncturing pattern for different vifs" case.

johannes