On 3 January 2017 at 14:29, Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What is with the patch numbering, ie. 3/2? It's my small trick related to the "This patch should probably go through wireless-driver-next" ;) I wanted to make it clear that only 2 patches are strictly targeted for the mac80211-next tree. > On 3-1-2017 12:03, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> There are some devices (e.g. Netgear R8000 home router) with one chipset >> model used for different radios, some of them limited to subbands. NVRAM >> entries don't contain any extra info on such limitations and firmware >> reports full list of channels to us. We need to store extra limitation >> info on DT to support such devices properly. >> >> This patch adds check for channel being disabled with orig_flags which >> is how this wiphy helper works. > > this is the first mention about the wiphy helper. Probably need > statement here that call to wiphy_read_of_freq_limits() was added in > this patch which applies the extra limitation info read from DT. OK, I'll improve this description. >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> This patch should probably go through wireless-driver-next, I'm sending >> it just as a proof of concept. It was succesfully tested on SmartRG >> SR400ac with BCM43602. >> >> V4: Respect IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in orig_flags >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c >> index ccae3bb..f95e316 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c >> @@ -5886,6 +5886,9 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg, >> band->band); >> channel[index].hw_value = ch.control_ch_num; >> >> + if (channel->orig_flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED) >> + continue; >> + >> /* assuming the chanspecs order is HT20, >> * HT40 upper, HT40 lower, and VHT80. >> */ >> @@ -6477,6 +6480,7 @@ static int brcmf_setup_wiphy(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct brcmf_if *ifp) >> wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_5GHZ] = band; >> } >> } >> + wiphy_read_of_freq_limits(wiphy); > > The return value is ignored, which I suppose is fine. So does the > function need a return value at all? Is there a scenario where the DT > info *must* be supplied? To be honest, I can't decide. Right now I don't see a point of checking that function result (as you noticed, it should never be required). If no one objects, I'll try switching that function to void. -- Rafał
