From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Masashi Honma Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mac80211: mesh: fixed HT ies in beacon template Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:59:04 +0900 Message-ID: <1c2d3cfc-b7fd-c8fd-4f74-14dd3aa3076e@gmail.com> References: <20160713200755.26839-1-yanivma@ti.com> <40a34537-486e-a466-5a7e-e253f19d81c3@gmail.com> <1470045822.3389.24.camel@sipsolutions.net> <75fef3ce-41a6-5845-e9be-d7ff052a07da@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Yaniv Machani , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Meirav Kama , "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <75fef3ce-41a6-5845-e9be-d7ff052a07da-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > On 2016年08月01日 19:03, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> But why is that behaviour *correct*? We still support 40 MHz bandwidth >> things, we just don't use them if we disable HT40. Or do you mean difference between "hardware capability" and "software capability" ? Do you think IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 bit should be 1 if the hardware capable of HT40 even though HT40 is disabled by wpa_supplicant/hostapd ? I have tested with hostapd. I compared these 2 configfiles. hostapd0.conf ht_capab=[HT40-] hostapd1.conf #ht_capab=[HT40-] The IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 bit in beacon was below. hostapd0.conf IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 = 1 hostapd1.conf IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 = 0 So I think the bit should be zero if disabled also for mesh peer. Masashi Honma. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html