On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 17:05 +0800, Wen Gong wrote: > On 8/11/2023 5:03 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 11:51 +0800, Wen Gong wrote: > > > Now there are many nl80211_band such as NL80211_BAND_2GHZ/ > > > NL80211_BAND_5GHZ/NL80211_BAND_6GHZ... In the same interface, if some bands > > > support EML, and other bands not support EML, then how to handler this > > > case? > > But ... these are MLD capabilities, not of the (associated) STA? > Yes, I know it. Then you can't honestly be suggesting we move "MLD capa and ops" into per-band, no? > > So not sure how that would make sense? What would you even _do_ with > > that? > I think another change is not move "u16 eml_capabilities", and only add > a new > field "u16 eml_supp_bands" together with the "u16 eml_capabilities", the > eml_supp_bands is filled with the bit map of enum nl80211_band. Is that OK? > And again, what would you do with it? Not advertise EML when you have selected links that are not in the map? And if the links change dynamically in the future? You'd probably need a bunch of validation for that. And usually you'd probably always connect to all the bands? I really don't get it. Btw this is all client - so your client implementation can just not send the EML action frame (forgot the name right now) when the currently active links are not compatible. johannes
