Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 2024-01-12 at 15:10 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Miri Korenblit <miriam.rachel.korenblit@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > + /* currently no support for HE client where HT has 40 MHz but not HT */ >> > + if (iftd->he_cap.has_he && >> > + iftd->types_mask & (BIT(NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION) | >> > + BIT(NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT)) && >> > + sband->ht_cap.ht_supported && >> > + sband->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 && >> > + !(iftd->he_cap.he_cap_elem.phy_cap_info[0] & he_40_mhz_cap)) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> >> Should there be a warning message so that this is noticed if it ever >> happens? I don't know. > > Yeah I don't really know either. I've done that a lot in the past, but > these days I'm kind of thinking that people who develop their drivers > should have some debug story and be able to figure it out? You know > better perhaps ... My worry here is the time needed to figure this all out. Especially if we have more of these kind silent checks it could get complex quite quick. > Though it'd kind of suck to indent this further with WARN_ON ;-) Yeah, WARN_ON() feels a bit too much. I was more thinking about a small pr_err() or something like that which give at least some hint what's happening. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
