From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
bkil <b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com>
Cc: wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows 5850-5895 immediately
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:06:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOdVFE51Wbxr80Qf@ubuntu-x1>
Hi,
Uh, sorry for the delay.
>
> The first is that it seems I forgot to test build this patch before I
> pushed it. The PTMP-ONLY flag isn't allowed by db2fw.py. This was done
> by Johannes for reasons which aren't explained, so maybe he can shed
> some light on it. The flag doesn't appear to be used by the kernel or
> hostapd, so maybe it was deprecated long ago. Anyway, I've pushed a
> change to remove this flag.
I don't remember, but quite likely we decided it was just not something
we could implement properly or so, and never supported it? Sorry.
Clearly the kernel does nothing at all with NL80211_RRF_PTMP_ONLY.
> The second problem is more serious. I thought that we could allow 160
> MHz bandwidth across two AUTO-BW ranges too small for this bandwidth,
> but it turns out that the kernel rejects any rules with a bandwidth
> greater than the frequency range of the rule. I'm not sure what we can
> do about this. Even if the kernel were changed to support allowing
> greater bandwidths across combined ranges, we're going to have a
> backwards compatibility problem with older kernels.
OTOH, doesn't AUTO-BW basically ignore the max bandwidth for a given
range anyway, seeing the code in reg_get_max_bandwidth_from_range()? So
just keeping it at 80 with AUTO-BW would still result in 160 being
usable? I think?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-09 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-03 22:40 [PATCH] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows 5850-5895 immediately bkil
2020-12-04 15:11 ` Seth Forshee
2020-12-05 20:24 ` b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh
2020-12-07 4:32 ` Seth Forshee
2020-12-07 10:10 ` b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh
2020-12-07 13:54 ` Seth Forshee
2021-06-08 15:47 ` Seth Forshee
2021-06-30 15:17 ` b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh
2021-06-30 16:03 ` [PATCH v2] " bkil
2021-07-06 15:51 ` Seth Forshee
2021-07-08 19:42 ` Seth Forshee
2021-08-09 20:06 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2021-08-11 19:22 ` [wireless-regdb] " Seth Forshee
2021-07-06 15:45 ` [PATCH] " Seth Forshee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
--cc=wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).