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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 8A1C1C04EB8 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEE720878 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:51:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3CEE720878 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725955AbeLDLu7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 06:50:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34628 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725767AbeLDLu7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 06:50:59 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294143086247; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.211]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E4627075; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:50:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:50:50 +0100 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Lorenzo Bianconi Cc: Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT 3/4] mt76x02: do not set protection on set_rts_threshold callback Message-ID: <20181204115049.GA4515@redhat.com> References: <1541688430-31855-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1541688430-31855-4-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <20181109092355.GB4174@localhost.localdomain> <20181204104459.GA2081@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181204104459.GA2081@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.49]); Tue, 04 Dec 2018 11:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:45:09AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Only OFDM_PROT_CFG is configured there based on legacy proto > value. I'm not sure how handle CCK_PROT_CFG. > > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_MM20_PROT_CFG, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_MM40_PROT_CFG, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_GF20_PROT_CFG, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_GF40_PROT_CFG, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_TX_PROT_CFG6, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_TX_PROT_CFG7, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > - mt76_rmw(dev, MT_TX_PROT_CFG8, > > > - MT_PROT_CFG_CTRL | MT_PROT_CFG_RTS_THRESH, data); > > > > Removing these lines we are no longer able to configure protection for VHT > > rates. Do we have an equivalent for them in vht_capab? > > Actually it's not based on HT capabilities but by on ht operation and > it's modified dynamically by hostapd based on what stations are > associated. For STA mode it's provided by remote AP via HT operation IE. > > VHT Operation IE do not define protection. Seems interoperability with > legacy STA's is not allowed for VHT, so leaving default values from > initvals where PROT bits are 0 (none protection) is right thing to do. But vendor driver change the VHT protection bits based on HT operation element, with the comment: "TODO: shiang-6590, fix me for this protection mechanism" So I'm not sure any longer what correct behaviour should be for TX_PROT_CFG{6,7,8}. Regards Stanislaw