From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EDA63C for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731746008; cv=none; b=H8hKjSPh8C+oivgecD9yCUswmt5s24CJ/vnXZjfWBgC0qylOOPERNDDkaKSQkHNmdciVo67TIuw5tRm0oyz+hemUCuymCP6MQKOqY3xNP0PgqD3jKDgY0wF/z+6xboCMKySIvjhSDFspjRHdDLmk6vn2NTolweeTd1JWvftMULc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731746008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SZ+rp0CTt6YYQftu7p/yV48To+7GzMlUfwrbZ3IjSrk=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=rA3m5ARIIwxHwNVYBxo81PtkZZJDxVKFUsCcwAklnPbMJ4xYJkSYjRWDRsPs68ff4rMvfPBMOMNL/s5TFQr4nPPfDGZ+DhwIS5TmHHICyQvZYqqrcPfjO4rvmqMiPnzoNxeFWvIiFYsuMAz9aOFRpw5e9cbWGfGUY4b/6NEmlSA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=D3Jx7mTH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="D3Jx7mTH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 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=SZ+rp0CTt6YYQftu7p/yV48To+7GzMlUfwrbZ3IjSrk=; t=1731746006; x=1732955606; b=D3Jx7mTHuBDervoALj9ohs6+y984WIPcQ6GH0WLSxQcPK6a Chf299rIkgX8GVUwz0eqzswhFr47Jp87ggQNj7woXPIK4QpRC32/Zmv2mODG9lWqwS9w88ubp6ZRC 37DxIrHL/4DonwSOpQD5ONdBWFpCPugnNHXQIkHtZiPTFCQB4vWx3WfgnHfsnq0nbC6UdWdYKK1kE tz+alVmrRSgFmt9nudUHwRgjrjTwEN0Yy+TZlL4nVGHgEOli9RSxo6mNFM65Q1zgulquzNIiMRAvD he4Zum449prPqdZV8uYt/tHR6feBjudUc/pA8nZgK4nx9AP/ubZgefzJxfvmaHfA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tCEF9-00000006Jnb-42R3; Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:33:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless-regdb: assert and correct maximum bandwidth within frequency difference From: Johannes Berg To: Ping-Ke Shih , wens@kernel.org Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, combuster@gmail.com Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:33:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20241116082417.8720-1-pkshih@gmail.com> References: <20241116082417.8720-1-pkshih@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-2.fc40) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Sat, 2024-11-16 at 16:24 +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > From: Ping-Ke Shih >=20 > Since kernel will reject max bandwidth being larger than freq_diff in > is_valid_reg_rule(), as well reject it ahead. Not sure that's generally true, if you have AUTO-BW I think it should be OK? johannes