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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 5420AC072B5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FDE20673 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391347AbfEXL4o (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 07:56:44 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:54872 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391289AbfEXL4o (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 07:56:44 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hU8oU-0004aQ-IG; Fri, 24 May 2019 13:56:42 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] nl80211: add 6GHz band support From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 13:56:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1558353645-18119-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> References: <1558353645-18119-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Hi Arend, On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 14:00 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > In 802.11ax D4.0 a new band has been proposed. This series contains > changes to cfg80211 for supporting this band. With 2GHz and 5GHz there > was no overlap in channel number. However, this new band has channel > numbers with a range from 1 up to 253. At the wireless workshop in Prague, we looked at this and sort of decided that it'd be better to put all the 6 GHz channels into the 5 GHz "band" in nl80211, to avoid all the "5 || 6" since they're really the same except for very specific places like scanning. The channel numbers problem came up, of course, but for nl80211 it's not that relevant since we deal with frequencies only, and we thought inside the kernel it'd be better to disambiguate them with operating classes, where needed - only few places really deal with channel numbers to start with. Do you have any reason to think that it's better as a separate band enum (which I notice you put before 60 GHz thus breaking the API/ABI :P)? Thanks, johannes