Re: [PATCH wireless-next v4 11/14] wifi: cfg80211: add PD-specific preamble and bandwidth capabilities

[Peddolla Harshavardhan Reddy <peddolla.reddy@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 14-Apr-26 2:05 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-03-20 at 23:29 +0530, Peddolla Harshavardhan Reddy wrote:
>
>
>> +++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
>> @@ -2482,6 +2482,20 @@ nl80211_send_pmsr_ftm_capa(const struct cfg80211_pmsr_capabilities *cap,
>>  				cap->pd_max_peer_rsta_role))
>>  			return -ENOBUFS;
>>  	}
>> +
>> +	if (nla_put_u32(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_PD_EDCA_PREAMBLES,
>> +			cap->ftm.pd_edca_preambles))
>> +		return -ENOBUFS;
>> +	if (nla_put_u32(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_PD_NTB_PREAMBLES,
>> +			cap->ftm.pd_ntb_preambles))
>> +		return -ENOBUFS;
>> +	if (nla_put_u32(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_PD_EDCA_BANDWIDTHS,
>> +			cap->ftm.pd_edca_bandwidths))
>> +		return -ENOBUFS;
>> +	if (nla_put_u32(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_CAPA_ATTR_PD_NTB_BANDWIDTHS,
>> +			cap->ftm.pd_ntb_bandwidths))
>> +		return -ENOBUFS;
> That probably should be contingent on pd_support or so, otherwise you
> end up with a bunch of zero values in userspace, which is odd?
>
>> +	if (out->ftm.pd_request &&
>> +	    !(rdev->wiphy.pmsr_capa->ftm.pd_edca_bandwidths & BIT(out->chandef.width)) &&
>> +	    !(rdev->wiphy.pmsr_capa->ftm.pd_ntb_bandwidths & BIT(out->chandef.width))) {
>> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, "FTM: unsupported bandwidth for pd request");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
> This seems odd to me, why are you adding *two* fields when they're never
> treated differently? Shouldn't you check if it's an NTB or EDCA request?
>
>> +	if (out->ftm.pd_request &&
>> +	    !(capa->ftm.pd_ntb_preambles & BIT(preamble)) &&
>> +	    !(capa->ftm.pd_edca_preambles & BIT(preamble))) {
>> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack,
>> +				    tb[NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_PREAMBLE],
>> +				    "FTM: invalid preamble for PD request");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>>
> Same here.
>
> johannes

[Harsha]:- Fixed in latest patch set. Thanks.