From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FE6C4338F for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 20:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A9461004 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 20:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234036AbhHIUG5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:06:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38426 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233617AbhHIUG5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:06:57 -0400 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E3D0C0613D3 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 13:06:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=90lz2zud1WgSXseIMdNWHlW1oOyzXVZMgq01KiaMJiw=; t=1628539596; x=1629749196; b=i2ridrsfFiF26yfWMrq8lYb+iEquBdnYAPdZXsoM6++AM5z Ljogqeh6Nk3dq/JSXgfcEDzOXS6I8Cz7t5tNf6VSdVtTMtjAxdHtIpb+pOAy/LCIs32wLPkwCLSeD 951y3UaumVFdD+obhlF7/PDi95A9CcXq8IfBnZENoR7RMw3XRUYhyLskiJyvzKWlwa5UI2pS61KAB KzFn2LeEeoe2cBaLB9xA6XbsvOztBi0lY25Cu7cXXb6f1TLswNfr7P9vwl9QRd7dxqNqJKKUvXbVM 8NHxoxbH7O7fY68oV/evQlK+mmNPqnmQryxwc4WI3S/aX2xIgg2FahpE0E1nEQrQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mDBV4-008GGg-2e; Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:06:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows 5850-5895 immediately From: Johannes Berg To: Seth Forshee , bkil Cc: wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:06:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <10ffaa74a0779b7c7047de70cb1db7dfb0000022.1625068999.git.b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org 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