Thanks for the review! On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 12:37 +0530, Veerendranath Jakkam wrote: > On 2/5/22 3:32 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > From: Ilan Peer <ilan.peer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Based on Draft P802.11be_D1.3. > > > "Based on Draft P802.11be_D1.0". > > based on documentation and MACRO definitions, These changes are aligned > with P802.11be_D1.0 Hmm. I thought I squashed in all the later update patches, but maybe we forgot things! > > > +/* EHT beamformee SU number of spatial streams <= 80MHz is split between octet 0 > > + * and octet 1 > > + */ > > +#define IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_SU_BEAMFORMEE_SS_80MHZ 0x80 > > + > > +#define IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP1_SU_BEAMFORMEE_SS_80MHZ 0x03 > > +#define IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP1_SU_BEAMFORMEE_SS_160MHZ 0x1c > > +#define IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP1_SU_BEAMFORMEE_SS_320MHZ 0xe0 > > + > > > Append _MASK for the macros representing multi bit fields like above? > I guess that'd make some sense. > Or we can use GENMASK() to represent values > I don't like GENMASK() that much to be honest, it always feels confusing which way around the arguments should be and whether the edges are included or not, and then I don't feel we gain much from it? johannes
