| Message ID | 1561461027-10793-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | nl80211: add 6GHz band support | expand |
Hi Arend, After all the discussion, I think we want this? Care to resend? I think I want it at least because we shouldn't advertise HT/VHT on 6 GHz as is (just as part of HE) and that's easier if we have a different band enum, for the capability storage... > The only place I could find an > issue with this is in cfg80211_wext_freq(). Not sure how to deal with > that so it is not part of this series. Just finally break wext and say if you want to use 6 GHz you need to use nl80211? :) johannes
On July 24, 2019 11:35:14 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > Hi Arend, > > > > > After all the discussion, I think we want this? I think so yes. Even if it is just informational for user-space it seems to make sense for kernel side. > Care to resend? Will do. > I think I want it at least because we shouldn't advertise HT/VHT on 6 > GHz as is (just as part of HE) and that's easier if we have a different > band enum, for the capability storage... Right. > >> The only place I could find an >> issue with this is in cfg80211_wext_freq(). Not sure how to deal with >> that so it is not part of this series. > > Just finally break wext and say if you want to use 6 GHz you need to use > nl80211? :) Probably is true for he support as well. Not sure. Have not been using wext for the last decade ;-) Regards, Arend
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 15:40 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > > > The only place I could find an > > > issue with this is in cfg80211_wext_freq(). Not sure how to deal with > > > that so it is not part of this series. > > > > Just finally break wext and say if you want to use 6 GHz you need to use > > nl80211? :) > > Probably is true for he support as well. Not sure. Have not been using wext > for the last decade ;-) Me neither, our official releases don't even support it. Btw, there's a compiler warning introduced by the first patch, I think the fix is trivial though to add the 6GHZ in one place in mac80211 already. johannes
This is more or less a resend. The difference with the previous RFC is in the nl80211 API as the previous RFC was breaking ABI. In 802.11ax D4.0 a new band has been proposed. This series contains changes to cfg80211 for supporting this band. With 2GHz and 5GHz there was no overlap in channel number. However, this new band has channel numbers with a range from 1 up to 253. The only place I could find an issue with this is in cfg80211_wext_freq(). Not sure how to deal with that so it is not part of this series. The series applies to the master branch of the mac80211-next repository. Arend van Spriel (8): nl80211: add 6GHz band definition to enum nl80211_band cfg80211: add 6GHz UNII band definitions cfg80211: util: add 6GHz channel to freq conversion and vice versa cfg80211: extend ieee80211_operating_class_to_band() for 6GHz cfg80211: add 6GHz in code handling array with NUM_NL80211_BANDS entries cfg80211: use same IR permissive rules for 6GHz band cfg80211: ibss: use 11a mandatory rates for 6GHz band operation cfg80211: apply same mandatory rate flags for 5GHz and 6GHz include/uapi/linux/nl80211.h | 2 ++ net/wireless/chan.c | 3 ++- net/wireless/ibss.c | 16 +++++++++++----- net/wireless/nl80211.c | 1 + net/wireless/reg.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- net/wireless/trace.h | 3 ++- net/wireless/util.c | 14 +++++++++++++- 7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)