From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Martin Blumenstingl" <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
"Felix Fietkau" <nbd@nbd.name>,
"Arend van Spriel" <arend@broadcom.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 08:06:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1483427177.15591.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACna6ryrYY5G=Fvmsrq_sD3iX5dWreyz7R8mGEd6ogUck=twnQ@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20170102_231255_379430_96267468)
> When driver uses custom regulatory it registers initial channels at
> init but it can also react to regdom changes using reg_notifier. Is
> that correct?
We can treat regulatory and OF data as entirely independent, I think.
At least that's my suggestion:
* use OF data to populate the original channel list, saying which
channels are valid (or not)
* use regulatory later to further restrict settings of the channels
> So I'm looking at brcmf_cfg80211_reg_notifier which calls
> brcmf_setup_wiphybands which calls brcmf_construct_chaninfo.
> That last one reworks all channels on every call. It first marks all
> existing channels as DISABLED then queries firmware for the list of
> supported channels and updates wiphy channels one by one.
> So if I understand this correctly, every regdom change can result in
> rebuilding channels pretty much from the scratch. That's why I
> believed I need to call wiphy_freq_limits_apply on runtime, not just
> during the init.
>
> Is there some flow in my understanding?
I think maybe there's a problem in my understanding :)
All the regulatory code usually takes into account channel->orig_flags.
If this code also did, then we could have the original DISABLED flag
taken from OF still be valid here.
johannes
johannes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"Martin Blumenstingl"
<martin.blumenstingl-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
"Felix Fietkau" <nbd-Vt+b4OUoWG0@public.gmane.org>,
"Arend van Spriel"
<arend-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"Rafał Miłecki" <rafal-g1n6cQUeyibVItvQsEIGlw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 08:06:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1483427177.15591.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACna6ryrYY5G=Fvmsrq_sD3iX5dWreyz7R8mGEd6ogUck=twnQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> (sfid-20170102_231255_379430_96267468)
> When driver uses custom regulatory it registers initial channels at
> init but it can also react to regdom changes using reg_notifier. Is
> that correct?
We can treat regulatory and OF data as entirely independent, I think.
At least that's my suggestion:
* use OF data to populate the original channel list, saying which
channels are valid (or not)
* use regulatory later to further restrict settings of the channels
> So I'm looking at brcmf_cfg80211_reg_notifier which calls
> brcmf_setup_wiphybands which calls brcmf_construct_chaninfo.
> That last one reworks all channels on every call. It first marks all
> existing channels as DISABLED then queries firmware for the list of
> supported channels and updates wiphy channels one by one.
> So if I understand this correctly, every regdom change can result in
> rebuilding channels pretty much from the scratch. That's why I
> believed I need to call wiphy_freq_limits_apply on runtime, not just
> during the init.
>
> Is there some flow in my understanding?
I think maybe there's a problem in my understanding :)
All the regulatory code usually takes into account channel->orig_flags.
If this code also did, then we could have the original DISABLED flag
taken from OF still be valid here.
johannes
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-03 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-02 16:32 [PATCH V3 1/2] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency limit property Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 16:32 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 16:32 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 16:32 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 17:52 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-02 17:52 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-02 20:12 ` Arend van Spriel
2017-01-02 20:12 ` Arend van Spriel
2017-01-02 22:16 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 22:16 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-03 7:00 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-03 7:00 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-02 22:12 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 22:12 ` Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-03 7:06 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-01-03 7:06 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-02 16:32 ` [PATCH V3 3/2] brcmfmac: use wiphy_read_of_freq_limits to get extra limits Rafał Miłecki
2017-01-02 16:32 ` Rafał Miłecki
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=1483427177.15591.5.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arend@broadcom.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=rafal@milecki.pl \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.