From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:44734 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907Ab1KHVIh (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:08:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] mac80211: Support ht-cap over-rides. From: Johannes Berg To: Ben Greear Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4EB999BE.8050909@candelatech.com> References: <1320780995-30483-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1320780995-30483-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (sfid-20111108_203659_989707_E33ECA13) <1320782949.24797.45.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4EB994A1.1020808@candelatech.com> <1320785889.24797.75.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4EB999BE.8050909@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:08:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1320786515.24797.80.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20111108_220840_328525_F9FDBB68) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:06 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > About APs: that can't be right, there certainly will be 1x1 APs. > > Section 20.1.1 again: > > "An HT non-AP STA shall support all equal modulation (EQM) rates for one spatial stream (MCSs 0 through > 7) using 20 MHz channel width. An HT AP shall support all EQM rates for one and two spatial streams > (MCSs 0 through 15) using 20 MHz channel width." > > Again, I think the requirement is lame, and maybe everyone will just ignore it, > but it is there... Funny. Yeah I'm pretty sure everybody ignores that. Of course maybe you can't get a 1x1 AP certified as an AP, but surely that'll happen with a P2P GO all the time. > > start = allow_single_stream_mask ? 0 : 1; > > > > for (i = start; i< IEEE80211_HT_MCS_MASK_LEN; i++) { > > u8 val = smask[i]& scaps[i]; > > val |= ht_cap->mcs.rx_mask[i]& ~smask[i]; > > ht_cap->mcs.rx_mask[i] val; > > } > > > > or so. right? Much simpler? > > Depends on whether we want to honour the AP part of 20.1.1. > Since we don't support AP mode anyway right now, > I'm fine with your suggestion. Let me know if you want > me to proceed with your suggested changes. I don't want to honour it. In fact, the more I think about it the less I want to honour the 0-7 part here, since that just made the code more complex and almost nobody will be using this override anyway. johannes