From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82B8539C009 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775552422; cv=none; b=TyWShJqZ7RDj86cxvngb1Qae6cxkRvyAi4S+eit7b/dwfBrYaTtn2AYZ3kIfbuvh7XimbGTFznKSeM11VOyOqz6JJ2V6fXg+GFMy34eine6+K22MQ1ILTuNazHdXmKdYUYtq6GRlBKZBZNXf3PJshRiz4scUl6pAKVuPoOLGn+M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775552422; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f2WNmtNGEMXlUkgNTy9D95aV4k6e9ttfbrumvyiw5H8=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=vBfrfFPuCdlB67ANJdHZ7uShmIkN+4Vsj7uMFvElK7BeOoTfNTECdGwTD1qiXgYNqO/CgUeUQbKqZYzoFZ8yUNAPmBtoHUwP38g3FudJ/L9NJRca21CF35im2yhTwS3xdZEK6prGtatHWpXPonx2ypizMM0nvQ2vTTx/F6GRLwQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=uLvSChaE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="uLvSChaE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=f2WNmtNGEMXlUkgNTy9D95aV4k6e9ttfbrumvyiw5H8=; t=1775552421; x=1776762021; b=uLvSChaE2IBBXdl/WRPyelb2ZQ2fBCPoPY9B6WeHagle+re x2rqewOQbrTKHiHUBB6pFM48ug9JFe0BJkoCrRuEmHnclsMo1WO0nEHDntKLymVr0LBR/1ZhM5I0J G7/+BXS+GYShmYF1kuFuwdMid+gVtu9cjikL4bEidwyNSk4S4LgrY+dkuTKJSd7P1CZ5lTDGxbQW3 LlplqyZjYK9FuIFjJdR+btav+5ZfDtdwB8AhBLlcF0j4GPyU6fnyWip5GLnKwvuTDjr9NMEcGzErE 77Xx9qfvt4ZvlViT7JnCqjyoFcj0AFa292XKb6NebO3YqnMcvCfecovAP/5GZ7+w==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wA2IF-0000000CAzT-1gVi; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 11:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] EML Capabilities compliance changes From: Johannes Berg To: Pablo Martin-Gomez Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 11:00:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20260327201135.905852-1-pmartin-gomez@freebox.fr> (sfid-20260327_211151_662542_5A83B71C) References: <20260327201135.905852-1-pmartin-gomez@freebox.fr> (sfid-20260327_211151_662542_5A83B71C) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Fri, 2026-03-27 at 21:11 +0100, Pablo Martin-Gomez wrote: > There is some discrepencies between our codebase and the final version > of 802.11be-2024 regarding the EML Capabilities field. Given that no > driver supports EMLMR or tries to use 128TUs transition timeout, those > changes should not have any real impact.=20 Heh, funny, I noticed this a while ago too - it must've been in an earlier draft. And UHR has the same - but *does* (for now :) ) define 128 TU (which is why I noticed it.) johannes