On May 24, 2019 1:56:43 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Arend,
On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 14:00 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
In 802.11ax D4.0 a new band has been proposed. This series contains
changes to cfg80211 for supporting this band. With 2GHz and 5GHz there
was no overlap in channel number. However, this new band has channel
numbers with a range from 1 up to 253.
At the wireless workshop in Prague, we looked at this and sort of
decided that it'd be better to put all the 6 GHz channels into the 5 GHz
"band" in nl80211, to avoid all the "5 || 6" since they're really the
same except for very specific places like scanning.
Would have liked to be there, but attending is no longer an option for me.
We now have two autistic, non-verbal children and I am the primary
caregiver for the oldest because my wife can't handle him. Guess I should
have checked the workshop notes before working on this :-) Do you have URL?
Agree that most functional requirements for 6 GHz are same as 5 GHz. There
are some 6 GHz specifics about beaconing as well.
The channel numbers problem came up, of course, but for nl80211 it's not
that relevant since we deal with frequencies only, and we thought inside
the kernel it'd be better to disambiguate them with operating classes,
where needed - only few places really deal with channel numbers to start
with.
Do you have any reason to think that it's better as a separate band enum
No specific reason. Just that the few cfg80211-based drivers tend to use
channel number as hwvalue.
(which I notice you put before 60 GHz thus breaking the API/ABI :P)?
Right. Now I feel wet behind the ears :-p
I will go with 6G being additional 5G range and see how that works for us.
Gr. AvS
