On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 17:09 -0700, Aloka Dixit wrote: > On 10/18/2023 5:58 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > Are you thinking about (separately?) configuring the OFDMA puncturing? > > Which spec-wise you do per PPDU, controlled by the AP (trigger frame), I > > think? > > > > Need to study the spec again so not any time soon. > Will send a new series if it is needed. OK. > > > > 1. The DSP/radio can receive punctured PPDUs if listening on the non > > > > punctured channel. > > > > > > > > At least for our device that's not true, not sure about ath12k? It > > > > seems you have a per-peer puncturing configuration even, but that > > > > seems odd, and it's always just set to the vif puncturing > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, same vif puncturing pattern is assigned for all the peers > > > associated on that vif, but firmware requires it to be sent separately > > > for each peer. > > > > OK, thanks. > > > > What if it differs for different vifs? > > > > So far that use-case hasn't come up but I'm confirming if we really need > that support or not. Will get back you. Thanks. (Also reminder, but yeah, I've also been busy otherwise.) > > > If we do end up moving the bitmap back to chandef, we may need some > > > changes, because as I said above, when I originally added it I hadn't > > > thought of different bitmaps for each vif. > > > But can you give an example of what you would consider as compatible > > > channel contexts and what would be incompatible? I'm not clear on that part. > > > > Easy example: > > > > * control channel 36, 80 MHz, puncturing bitmap 0x2 > > * control channel 36, 80 MHz, puncturing bitmap 0 > > > > Contrary to what I thought and said before, I want to treat these as > > *not* compatible now, and allocate two channel contexts if I end up > > having to do this. > I'm okay if you want to move it back to chandef, in fact I myself can > send a series for it. I'm planning to start working on it now/soon. > As far as two contexts are concerned, sounds like you don't need that > for your use-case. And I will confirm if we need it or not. Not sure what you mean - I do in fact want two channel contexts for this? But please check if you need that or not, as discussed above - this is the "different puncturing pattern for different vifs" case. johannes
