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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 70EEAC4338F for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5477460EE5 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231247AbhHKTWy (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:22:54 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35984 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229802AbhHKTWy (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:22:54 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D392E60F21; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:22:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1628709750; bh=G2uRZMUVBnB65qXP4NVkE40JGyNsKNLR/ss2Ve51Iz8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PfQMhn6SlRBoqUWJhfC4FLnUwgmyOsaTe95q9Y8FgHgcwzSviiMZ5Wnjj2In73NRe kcUduK20Lvi8/RhIPhZp/kjTvF00XTwtVEFyC76yzeYMWSQKfLP1rFiVJwwx475pg8 JF/ouIoLEGyYWAtmTqmz7vyxvNOGHo3aIMcJ43MZVHoW1XpntcWUKam1hC5Zs9lCiT WKUsBmn5FCWHemWgBZY7FFWGAg5mtlFI2sgg9/Qlo/KSSTro5gvKuBSdt7ouE8CVbn +/X+YZCyfS87/HjDtZGfysijqzMchJwoHZ0T6bys3ggQ6OTEcS2hx7iIPU/V8d9Hbm J8fRz76zzqEEw== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:22:28 -0500 From: Seth Forshee To: Johannes Berg Cc: bkil , wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows 5850-5895 immediately Message-ID: References: <10ffaa74a0779b7c7047de70cb1db7dfb0000022.1625068999.git.b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com> <1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1f441ba830535161b62086c1fee0d027b36bffc6.camel@sipsolutions.net> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > Uh, sorry for the delay. > > > > The first is that it seems I forgot to test build this patch before I > > pushed it. The PTMP-ONLY flag isn't allowed by db2fw.py. This was done > > by Johannes for reasons which aren't explained, so maybe he can shed > > some light on it. The flag doesn't appear to be used by the kernel or > > hostapd, so maybe it was deprecated long ago. Anyway, I've pushed a > > change to remove this flag. > > I don't remember, but quite likely we decided it was just not something > we could implement properly or so, and never supported it? Sorry. > > Clearly the kernel does nothing at all with NL80211_RRF_PTMP_ONLY. > > > The second problem is more serious. I thought that we could allow 160 > > MHz bandwidth across two AUTO-BW ranges too small for this bandwidth, > > but it turns out that the kernel rejects any rules with a bandwidth > > greater than the frequency range of the rule. I'm not sure what we can > > do about this. Even if the kernel were changed to support allowing > > greater bandwidths across combined ranges, we're going to have a > > backwards compatibility problem with older kernels. > > OTOH, doesn't AUTO-BW basically ignore the max bandwidth for a given > range anyway, seeing the code in reg_get_max_bandwidth_from_range()? So > just keeping it at 80 with AUTO-BW would still result in 160 being > usable? I think? Yeah, I think you're right. So I guess the changes we ended up with should allow 160 Mz across these ranges. Thanks, Seth