On 16 January 2015 at 11:55, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 11:38 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > >> + /* we both use VHT */ >> + struct ieee80211_vht_cap vhtcap_ie; >> + struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = sta->sta.vht_cap; >> + >> + ieee80211_vht_oper_to_chandef(channel, >> + elems->vht_operation, >> + &chandef); > > Ok maybe I'm missing something - but can't this erroneously configure > the local HW to 160 MHz when it doesn't even support it, or so? > I will check this more. But seems chandef (sta chandef) is a local variable here, not used by the way. So, our chandef is form cfg80211 (sdata->u.ibss.chandef) and we don't change this. Orginaly this sta chandef was used to compare with ibss->chandef. - if (chandef.center_freq1 != - sdata->u.ibss.chandef.center_freq1) - htcap_ie.cap_info &= - cpu_to_le16(~IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40); But for me this check seems as not needed, eg. We support VHT80 and other ibss have only HT40 support - so we will have different center_freq1 - but still could operate, while sta_add and correct rates for sta configured. One I think we could check here is, if our chandef and sta chandef overlap. Anyway, I am not sure I understand your question correctly, you mean eg. we work in VHT80 mode and other ibss join in VHT160 mode? Does it really matter while we will use sta_add for this new V160 "station" and configure supported rates for this station? BR Janusz >> + memcpy(&vhtcap_ie, elems->vht_cap_elem, sizeof(vhtcap_ie)); >> + ieee80211_vht_cap_ie_to_sta_vht_cap(sdata, sband, &vhtcap_ie, sta); >> + if (memcmp(&vht_cap, &sta->sta.vht_cap, sizeof(vht_cap))) >> + rates_updated |= true; > > Indentation is wrong here. > > johannes > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
