On 2020-05-17 06:51, Jouni Malinen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote:
Following VHT Capabilities are mandatory for HE 6 GHz band
capabilities
and corresponding configs should be validated for 6 GHz band.
* VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_MASK
* VHT_CAP_MAX_A_MPDU_LENGTH_EXPONENT_MAX
* VHT_CAP_RX_ANTENNA_PATTERN
* VHT_CAP_TX_ANTENNA_PATTERN
This sounds quite strange.. VHT is explicitly not used on the 6 GHz
band. Why would we check VHT capabilities when operating on the 6 GHz
band?
Jouni,
Let me clarify. The driver doesn't advertise band specific capabilities
explicitly.
IIRC spec mentions that the 6 GHz capabilities are referred from
device's HT, VHT
capabilities as 6 GHz prohibits HT/VHT operations. Hence only mandatory
HT/VHT
capabilities required to build 6 GHz cap are validated against user
config.
In future, there will be dual band devices that support both 5 GHz & 6
GHz. IMHO
it is simpler to check mandatory HT/VHT capability needed for 6 GHz
against user config,
instead of defining 6 GHz capability check explicitly.
diff --git a/src/ap/hw_features.c b/src/ap/hw_features.c
@@ -671,8 +671,17 @@ int hostapd_check_ht_capab(struct hostapd_iface
*iface)
And why would this check be in a function that is checking HT
capabilities? HT is also explicitly not used on the 6 GHz band and
checking VHT parameters in a function for checking HT parameters does
not sound correct.
Leveraging the HT/VHT capability checks for building 6 GHz cap as the
device won't advertise
band specific HE capabilities. From user perspective, just op_class and
channel number
are enough to differentiate operating band and rest of config unaltered.
{
int ret;
- if (is_6ghz_freq(iface->freq))
+ if (is_6ghz_freq(iface->freq)) {
+ /*
+ * VHT capabilities needed for HE 6 GHz Band Capabilities
+ * needs to be validated against config.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_IEEE80211AC
+ if (!ieee80211ac_supported_vht_capab(iface))
+ return -1;
+#endif
return 0;
+ }
if (!iface->conf->ieee80211n)
return 0;
This cannot really be logically correct and certainly not the correct
place for doing this check.
Same as above. thoughts?
-Rajkumar
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
