[PATCH wireless-next] wifi: cfg80211: don't apply HT flags to S1G channels

[Lachlan Hodges <lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com>]

HT flags don't really make sense when applied to S1G channels
especially given the bandwidths both used for calculations and
conveyed (i.e 20MHz). Similarly with the 80/160/..MHz channels,
each bonded subchannel is validated individually within
cfg80211_s1g_usable(), so the regulatory validation is similarly
redundant. Additionally, usermode application output (such as iwinfo
below) doesn't particularly make sense when enumerating S1G channels:

before:

925.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 47) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ]
926.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 49) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ]
927.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 51) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ, NO_PRIMARY]

after:

925.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 47) [NO_16MHZ]
926.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 49) [NO_16MHZ]
927.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 51) [NO_16MHZ, NO_PRIMARY]

Don't process the S1G band when applying HT flags as both the regulatory
component is redundant and the flags don't make sense for S1G channels.

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Hodges <lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com>
---
 net/wireless/reg.c | 11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c
index a8ab0ab22d90..6cbfa3b78311 100644
--- a/net/wireless/reg.c
+++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
@@ -2332,8 +2332,17 @@ static void reg_process_ht_flags(struct wiphy *wiphy)
 	if (!wiphy)
 		return;
 
-	for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++)
+	for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++) {
+		/*
+		 * Don't apply HT flags to channels within the S1G band.
+		 * Each bonded channel will instead be validated individually
+		 * within cfg80211_s1g_usable().
+		 */
+		if (band == NL80211_BAND_S1GHZ)
+			continue;
+
 		reg_process_ht_flags_band(wiphy, wiphy->bands[band]);
+	}
 }
 
 static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
-- 
2.43.0