From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Pablo MARTIN-GOMEZ <pmartin-gomez@freebox.fr>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] wifi: Transition/Padding delay subfields are for both EMLSR and EMLMR
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:14:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8467ef16e27bf5d2d7bf5bb0f6654be2034834bd.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1fdb014e-9b40-4e89-b90d-b4283338fd91@freebox.fr> (sfid-20260409_110433_663128_2C435C6B)
On Thu, 2026-04-09 at 11:04 +0200, Pablo MARTIN-GOMEZ wrote:
>
> What about `IEEE80211_EML_CAP_EMLSR_EMLMR_PADDING_DELAY`? It also has
> two tables for EMLSR (9-417i) and EMLMR (9-417k) but they have the same
> content (as of 802.11be). Do I just rename
> `IEEE80211_EML_CAP_EMLSR_PADDING_DELAY_XUS` to
> `IEEE80211_EML_CAP_EML_PADDING_DELAY_XUS` or do I split it in two
> identical `IEEE80211_EML_CAP_EMLSR_PADDING_DELAY_XUS` &
> `IEEE80211_EML_CAP_EMLMR_PADDING_DELAY_XUS` to future proof it in case
> of a change in a future amendment?
> >
It isn't going to change, this field will need to stay around like this
forever, only thing the spec could do is add new values (i.e. use some
currently reserved values), but even that is tricky ... So I don't think
we need to consider future changes here. I'd probably just rename it,
but it doesn't matter all that much?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-09 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-27 20:11 [PATCH 0/3] EML Capabilities compliance changes Pablo Martin-Gomez
2026-03-27 20:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] wifi: Transition Timeout of 128TUs is not defined Pablo Martin-Gomez
2026-03-27 20:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] wifi: EMLMR Delay subfield has been removed Pablo Martin-Gomez
2026-03-27 20:11 ` [PATCH 3/3] wifi: Transition/Padding delay subfields are for both EMLSR and EMLMR Pablo Martin-Gomez
2026-04-07 14:00 ` Johannes Berg
2026-04-07 15:47 ` Pablo MARTIN-GOMEZ
2026-04-08 12:07 ` Johannes Berg
2026-04-09 9:04 ` Pablo MARTIN-GOMEZ
2026-04-09 13:14 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2026-04-07 9:00 ` [PATCH 0/3] EML Capabilities compliance changes 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=8467ef16e27bf5d2d7bf5bb0f6654be2034834bd.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmartin-gomez@freebox.fr \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox