From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rtits2.realtek.com.tw (rtits2.realtek.com [211.75.126.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB60933986F for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:57:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=211.75.126.72 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776139053; cv=none; b=PAR7yDlh/aD6Z30P+GHOShU3mBnrXZuDGGEp3zzs5Kyl2rUnbpX73//eFa0pSweISnG0hAYXftTmHnm9j0tEQRvbEmddvQrFEJ2d3lCNxmNaTgDgGXBhjt5aw5H7QnEMQCU0ArqIZFAKA1F5+4elUpOlpQqytB7ifZ4JZE8T4Ug= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776139053; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dQCzcMwHbpL4/HL92Ve0p6qrInseSpDjRGvHeLyXwbY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=dTVOY3m9+CISyJLRbiH7qOWGPZcNfl6QQlTnJzPYCapa0Qtr5IEQgEGFMerMzdajOzxoa8j6btgI8INwd0bUlBrJzzRAI8uoFxwssaGX0mHvoj4i6g00ycWbuwaqA8/dHqexQFhSGpsjQqJ+TPgd3IIDftWR4f7FvCK4XADWbH4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=realtek.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=realtek.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=realtek.com header.i=@realtek.com header.b=locBVVXl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=211.75.126.72 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=realtek.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=realtek.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=realtek.com header.i=@realtek.com header.b="locBVVXl" X-SpamFilter-By: ArmorX SpamTrap 5.80 with qID 63E3vHtpD1323972, This message is accepted by code: ctloc85258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=realtek.com; s=dkim; t=1776139037; bh=dQCzcMwHbpL4/HL92Ve0p6qrInseSpDjRGvHeLyXwbY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=locBVVXl62mbe0NigcQg+hJyWfK4jnCg7cVajHdKxD0Sirxb0Mh7qPWTP4WFKBAfh 1FkLfYmPVihu6VhJWTixPcWiL3QkfrxAHv1APbpRdvow2LKg5CtBCdOb1b8FchB6p3 YL7Nws30jQHA0fugPaGJI6eMLaN3V43sZ2IrSNWvoKt2OTk8LkSotuP4YeO9ylWtW6 HveFU2fYN5rpyYiB4liQDsXR4fobFQzXH7y2er8YvLOaOu5l8e6l65IP8AptfA/M04 dMEetWfaEq2qmLCeaXXFGfrLFgG/pdfKPUt0+ZEpgxeXN+u5N1ziqeIQY7Z+s3l2xv tPsqU8tjqyCXA== Received: from mail.realtek.com (rtkexhmbs04.realtek.com.tw[10.21.1.54]) by rtits2.realtek.com.tw (8.15.2/3.26/5.94) with ESMTPS id 63E3vHtpD1323972 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:57:17 +0800 Received: from RTKEXHMBS01.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.40) by RTKEXHMBS04.realtek.com.tw (10.21.1.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1748.10; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:57:17 +0800 Received: from RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw (10.21.1.56) by RTKEXHMBS01.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.17; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:57:05 +0800 Received: from RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw ([fe80::ed72:3015:2840:4458]) by RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw ([fe80::ed72:3015:2840:4458%10]) with mapi id 15.02.1748.010; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:57:05 +0800 From: Ping-Ke Shih To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo CC: Kalle Valo , Yan-Hsuan Chuang , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel-dev@igalia.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH] rtw88: add TX power limit support to 114 and 130 channels Thread-Topic: [PATCH] rtw88: add TX power limit support to 114 and 130 channels Thread-Index: AQHcrZj6b0aZaPK17kqRjXoafOBZKbXX3tPQ///l4ICABPIGEP//9mWAgAF6RrA= Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:57:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20260306-rtw88_channel130-v1-1-ff25a5bc930a@igalia.com> <55c23c5551354c6f8752d620f268b37b@realtek.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-TW Content-Language: zh-TW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 05:56:17AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > > Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 03:56:11AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > > > > Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > > > Though 114 and 130 are not usual channels, they are found in the = wild with > > > > > setups using 5350MHz as the center frequency of a 80MHz setup. > > > > > > > > What did the AP setup? channel 114 160MHz? > > > > I wonder why rtw88 can select a not usual channel 114 80MHz. > > > > > > > > Please share your environment setup. > > > > > > > > > > This is a Mikrotik that uses channel 130 at 80MHz. > > > > I'm surprised that an AP can work on this not usual channel/bandwidth. > > Can you change the setting to usual channel/bandwidth? We'd avoid using > > this unsupported channel/bandwidth by [1]. > > >=20 > It seems to be "well-known" that some APs do it and it has caused other > issues in other drivers. But it works just fine with a lot of other > drivers. So, I would rather make rtw88 work with that setting, even if it > falls back to 40MHz, for example. >=20 > Let me check what happens when using the proposed patch and I will report > back to you. >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > rtw88 supports that, but issues a WARNING because it cannot find = the TX > > > > > power limit for those channels. > > > > > > > > Actually, rtw88 hardware can't support that, so we are working on p= atch > > > > to avoid selecting unusual channels. Can it work properly with > > > > the AP after this patch? > > > > > > > > > > It does work just fine even without the patch. The only issue is the > > > WARNING that is triggered. > > > > > > > As internal discussion, hardware doesn't work on channel 130 80M, > > which means connection might be well, but it can't yield expected perfo= rmance. > > More, the power limit is not really verified on ch130 80M, so we wonder > > that the signal might not in expectation. > > >=20 > The rationale behing my patch was exactly to try to set the power limit t= o > the lesser one of the adjacent channels.=20 The hardware setting of channel 130 80M is unknown, since we have never verified that, so I can't say use the lesser one is always correct.=20 (Personally I'd make this choice if I have no more information from interna= l hardware experts.) > I am not sure that the expected > performance was not achieved. How would you suggest that I verify? I think you can check if RX rate is 80MHz or not. If it really works properly on 80MHz, you can yield TX/RX UDP throughput about 0.7 * PHY rates. Ping-Ke