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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DADEB64D7 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232967AbjFTNWF (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:22:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50970 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232970AbjFTNVv (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:21:51 -0400 Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.48]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17FF9210B for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 06:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (ip6-localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8101F283C15 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:19:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mail3.candelatech.com (mail2.candelatech.com [208.74.158.173]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 93145340064; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.115] (unknown [98.97.35.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A074513C2B0; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 06:19:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail3.candelatech.com A074513C2B0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=candelatech.com; s=default; t=1687267167; bh=rrMv3DVJ+9vsd1XBWLV8ryZqPd2LEYh+BJ3vSDQZwmQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GWyWVytPuhK0SJvtp2FGZvEi1uy41lnycMrQfXryBzfLTIoPSN3F6qrSFJ+fL9c7V y9/UV1y/OU1UGi4aFW1K6ANWUiMSda/qgkQYtpnO/lm2XLT0A1HKm3rSYSp4+c8wEk CQ6IQjDdXMF3KLUIJ+WFkvV03xRG9e6sQ4jrh/0o= Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/19] wifi: iwlwifi: limit EHT capabilities based on PCIe link speed To: gregory.greenman@intel.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg References: <20230620100405.45117-1-gregory.greenman@intel.com> <20230620125813.b77a1574a0a7.Id4120c161fb7df6dedc70d5f3e3829e9117b8cb1@changeid> From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 06:19:26 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20230620125813.b77a1574a0a7.Id4120c161fb7df6dedc70d5f3e3829e9117b8cb1@changeid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-MW Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MDID: 1687267168-CJVsEtA90vdk X-MDID-O: us5;ut7;1687267168;CJVsEtA90vdk;;5c90bc175759a0446550edff92160f2f Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On 6/20/23 3:03 AM, gregory.greenman@intel.com wrote: > From: Johannes Berg > > If a discrete NIC is connected to a PCIe link hat isn't at least > Gen3 (8.0 GT/s), then we cannot sustain 320 MHz traffic, so remove > that from EHT capabilities in that case. > > While at it, also move setting 320 MHz beamformee to the right > place in the code so it's not set while not supporting 320 MHz. Is there not an advantage to allowing 320Mhz for longer distance connections where signal is relatively weak, so over-all tput would easily fit in lesser pcie bus? Especially on 6E band where the US regdom allows more over-all power when using wider bandwidths? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com