From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-23.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443FD37E5D2 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.23 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791386319; cv=none; b=ClvHKtkWDV5VrpoDhZdbx+KTTlERJsydYBjfAJ7diugIFIDm2yz8sBXrmjOYhucyEbCTR7tPumZvO7RPFsGTo0zOBOYMrnnmekkVhs1IfV496mBMio6bxlLqGseyNM9LMe6uIr57YwBvV4zm/DVnUmaSgYDCDaTujN4UwIIpwI0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791386319; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WfxnmXqZPqJh+A0ek5itXOZf1C/VdEvpiu7rHAaTZkI=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Subject:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=BKVbQxqagbX44y1Fjzi0so320gblYZxFc/oWBqHGokq2ylovbXMcRK4JnfnlvQjmnxDydTr2y7hqN+2D8hg1VKS6iR2TABbcTLHInk4a1OdtQsauNBk/XJqVcln7OhHv+Upxp34xHnvmPQOU6LobhlH5QlDR8arQyL5DUgkbHEg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow-tech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow-tech.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow-tech.com header.i=@cknow-tech.com header.b=mRkVORWC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.23 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow-tech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow-tech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow-tech.com header.i=@cknow-tech.com header.b="mRkVORWC" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=WfxnmXqZPqJh+A0ek5itXOZf1C/VdEvpiu7rHAaTZkI=; c=simple/simple; d=cknow-tech.com; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1791386311; v=1; x=1791991111; b=mRkVORWC1hIwSlDe5LyEe/cFGPbPCpSCPPUsgYQ1gop4V05yPW5B+toI0MqCl9zjMTzxbSc6 dfLg73/1xL6PcJ6v5zQUUa91k3i8t0rL8F4AHpnGz1FRtQXOvBFVM0Xqrd3wAxyVy37ktKU9inS xmmyAt1UyY7dZU2o2/oyDfRH5bf1/oucveROG04sEyBgfJcoH5SQ9IdzfBdbr3UfeV4qqENaohc Sz+2o5mpaJfGl52Mft6xL0GjRRigM5/eYoVeKV3YnExvGMjehBfwRVsMQzM6jn+ZPqhKE5qd1XM PyA5dutcgTMOXs5TWm7W/3WzgMPUwhrVtyz6K2SvuscmA== X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id b441c3345877503e; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:18:21 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: b441c3345877503e X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:18:19 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Johannes Berg" , =?utf-8?q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Roux?= Cc: "Diederik de Haas" , "Emmanuel Grumbach" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: don't WARN on a missing self-managed regdom From: "Diederik de Haas" X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0-31-g5c1c510d2b65 References: <20261006161744.3804-1-franzelfranzel@gmail.com> <16aa99921c4e92e8d4da3c84aacbec2e673666aa.camel@sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <16aa99921c4e92e8d4da3c84aacbec2e673666aa.camel@sipsolutions.net> On Wed Oct 7, 2026 at 4:55 PM CEST, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2026-10-06 at 18:17 +0200, Fran=C3=A7ois Roux wrote: >> nl80211_get_reg_do() has a WARN_ON() for a self-managed wiphy without a >> private regdomain. Userspace can trigger it with a plain >> NL80211_CMD_GET_REG request. >>=20 >> Drivers can register such a wiphy first and set its regdomain later. >> ath12k, for example, calls ieee80211_register_hw() and only then applies >> the regdomain with ath12k_regd_update(). iwd queries the regdomain of a >> new wiphy as soon as it shows up, so it can hit that window at boot: >>=20 >> WARNING: net/wireless/nl80211.c:10828 at nl80211_get_reg_do+0x1d0/0x1f= c [cfg80211], CPU#5: iwd/721 > > I'm not a fan of this, I think the drivers should have the regdom ready. > >> The same trace has been reported with an Intel BE200 (iwlwifi). > > I _thought_ we fixed that issue. If that fix is supposed to be in 7.3-rc6 (from Linus), then no. If that's a recent fix/patch which is f.e. slated for -next/7.4(-rc1), then can you point me to it? Happy to test it. Before I reported the/my issue with Intel BE200 [1] I did search a bit on the linux-wireless ML and saw some patches where ACPI was an (important?= ) part. That's why I (so) explicitly mentioned that my system does NOT have an ACPI based firmware (but U-Boot (with TF-A)). Cheers, Diederik [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/DL5P72WYQVOQ.23G9D01OY3BAA@cknow= -tech.com/