On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > Uh, sorry for the delay. > > > > The first is that it seems I forgot to test build this patch before I > > pushed it. The PTMP-ONLY flag isn't allowed by db2fw.py. This was done > > by Johannes for reasons which aren't explained, so maybe he can shed > > some light on it. The flag doesn't appear to be used by the kernel or > > hostapd, so maybe it was deprecated long ago. Anyway, I've pushed a > > change to remove this flag. > > I don't remember, but quite likely we decided it was just not something > we could implement properly or so, and never supported it? Sorry. > > Clearly the kernel does nothing at all with NL80211_RRF_PTMP_ONLY. > > > The second problem is more serious. I thought that we could allow 160 > > MHz bandwidth across two AUTO-BW ranges too small for this bandwidth, > > but it turns out that the kernel rejects any rules with a bandwidth > > greater than the frequency range of the rule. I'm not sure what we can > > do about this. Even if the kernel were changed to support allowing > > greater bandwidths across combined ranges, we're going to have a > > backwards compatibility problem with older kernels. > > OTOH, doesn't AUTO-BW basically ignore the max bandwidth for a given > range anyway, seeing the code in reg_get_max_bandwidth_from_range()? So > just keeping it at 80 with AUTO-BW would still result in 160 being > usable? I think? Yeah, I think you're right. So I guess the changes we ended up with should allow 160 Mz across these ranges. Thanks, Seth _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb
