> > > +static enum nl80211_chan_width cfg80211_chan_to_bw_6ghz(u8 idx)
> > > +{
> > > + /* channels: 1, 5, 9, 13... */
> > > + if ((idx & 0x3) == 0x1)
> > > + return NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_20;
> > > + /* channels 3, 11, 19... */
> > > + if ((idx & 0x7) == 0x3)
> > > + return NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_40;
> > > + /* channels 7, 23, 39.. */
> > > + if ((idx & 0xf) == 0x7)
> > > + return NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_80;
> > > + /* channels 15, 47, 79...*/
> > > + if ((idx & 0x1f) == 0xf)
> > > + return NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160;
> > > +
> > > + return NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_20;
> > > +}
> >
> > We haven't really done that for anything else - is that really
> > necessary?
> >
> Hmm.. to check whether give center_freq1 chan_idx is allowed to operate
> in given bandwidth.
> Similar to center_idx_to_bw_6ghz of hostapd, this API is used to chandef
> bw.
Yeah, but good enough if hostapd does that check? I don't really see the
kernel caring too much?
> Don't we have to check chandef bw? If not, I will drop the change.
I'm not really sure why we should, tbh.
johannes
