From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Lachlan Hodges <lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, benjamin.berg@intel.com,
arien.judge@morsemicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC wireless-next] wifi: mac80211: correct rx freq handling for S1G
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2026 15:53:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fecc3de9ceec2ca6dbd49194c1963cc3456fe566.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yobzz5gqn2mb2mogqlxmwrilrzp5orz7up656p7zgvjukfp4jy@kv4f2szn2gkl> (sfid-20261002_115454_129599_D74A6614)
On Fri, 2026-10-02 at 19:54 +1000, Lachlan Hodges wrote:
> >
> > > For
> > > management frames obviously makes sense but for data frames
> > > sent on a wider channel wouldn't this be set to the operating
> > > channel? Especially for i.e sniffer? The mm81x driver reports
> > > it like this but maybe it should just report the control channel?
> >
> > So .. are you saying you always report the _overall_ center frequency,
> > even for 4/8/16 MHz widths, or just for 1 MHz vs 2 MHz primary?
>
> Yes, our firmware reports the frame at the overall center frequency,
> even for 4/8/16 MHz widths. Looking at our out of tree shim driver
> (5G mapping) it does the same thing i.e report the center frequency
> of 40/80/160 channel which is probably why mm81x does this.
I guess that makes some sense.
> Anyways this is not really a big deal knowing that we can just
> override it with the 1MHz control channel.
Sure, but should you?
> > I note that even S1G radiotap didn't really specify where the channel
> > is: https://radiotap.org/fields/S1G, so I'm not sure it can even report
> > everything correctly? The "Channel" field can't even cover the 1/2 MHz
> > centers.
>
> Yea this is on the TODO list.. Once initial monitor mode support lands,
> which I was going to send today but this bug has appeared, then we'll
> be fixing up the radiotap standard to better convey everything.
:)
> > So I think in some way this is almost more of a question of what you
> > want/need for radiotap than anything else.
>
> So another question then, Im looking at a poorly sourced 802.11ac
> wireshark capture and in the radiotap header it has:
>
> 802.11 radio information
> PHY type: 802.11ac (VHT) (8)
> Short GI: False
> Bandwidth: 80 MHz (4)
> TXOP_PS_NOT_ALLOWED: False
> User 0: MCS 7
> Data rate: 292.5 Mb/s
> Channel: 36
> Frequency: 5180MHz
> Signal strength (dBm): -40 dBm
> Noise level (dBm): -96 dBm
> Signal/noise ratio (dB): 56 dB
> TSF timestamp: 1911262072856970
> [Duration: 53µs]
>
> Where this is just a QoS data frame.. channel 36 is a 20MHz control
> channel @ 5180MHz and a width of 80MHz. I am assuming then, that if
> we were to follow this (as mentioned above) in the radiotap portion
> it would show as the 1MHz control (for channel + freq) and the width
> being the operating 4/8/.. ?
I don't know - I believe that "802.11 radio information" is synthesised
by wireshark from the other fields. It'd have to actually implement that
first, presumably by parsing some S1G data.
But once that's there I guess yes, that's what it'd show. You could also
just have it synthesise it differently I guess, or take only things from
some (extended) S1G field, or ... any number of things?
> Anyways, it seems like a small patch to handle freq_offset and then
> just changing the driver to report the 1MHz primary should hopefully
> fix all this up so Ill send that once I confirm.
If that's OK then I guess might be simplest overall.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-05 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-02 7:29 [PATCH RFC wireless-next] wifi: mac80211: correct rx freq handling for S1G Lachlan Hodges
2026-10-02 7:58 ` Johannes Berg
2026-10-02 8:11 ` Johannes Berg
2026-10-02 9:54 ` Lachlan Hodges
2026-10-05 13:53 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2026-10-06 6:06 ` Lachlan Hodges
2026-10-06 7:44 ` Johannes Berg
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=fecc3de9ceec2ca6dbd49194c1963cc3456fe566.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arien.judge@morsemicro.com \
--cc=benjamin.berg@intel.com \
--cc=lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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 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.