On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 19:34 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Aloka originally suggested that puncturing should be part of
> the chandef, so that it's treated correctly. At the time, I
> disagreed and it ended up not part of the chandef, but I've
> now realized that this was wrong. Even for clients, the RX,
> and perhaps more importantly, CCA configuration needs to take
> puncturing into account.
>
> Move puncturing into the chandef, and adjust all the code
> accordingly. Also add a few tests for puncturing in chandef
> compatibility checking.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c
> index e49360e29faf..876c8d581759 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c
> @@ -2495,8 +2495,11 @@ int rtw89_fw_h2c_assoc_cmac_tbl_g7(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
> }
>
> if (vif->bss_conf.eht_support) {
> - h2c->w4 |= le32_encode_bits(~vif->bss_conf.eht_puncturing,
> + u16 punct = vif->bss_conf.chanreq.oper.punctured;
> +
> + h2c->w4 |= le32_encode_bits(~punct,
> CCTLINFO_G7_W4_ACT_SUBCH_CBW);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
We don't deference chanctx to reference puncture value. Instead use the
value from vif->bss_conf.chanreq, so I think we don't need RCU locks, right?
I can prepare a fix for this, but want to confirm if my thinking is correct.
> h2c->m4 |= cpu_to_le32(CCTLINFO_G7_W4_ACT_SUBCH_CBW);
> }
>
>
