From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail11.truemail.it (mail11.truemail.it [217.194.8.81]) (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 B8C9E167DAC; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:18:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737371918; cv=none; b=a+TyMJ9GK6g5czWr8QHnQnVH4db9wciZ5zW68b1wTxCtrJQCLTjxqS6sydm76IoGsTwPCf8j6p+HUic3ByAQr8EtIc2x60IXFIH3WaWbgcA8GRD7sq7MNfe7jd6ofqLfp9JNBpt0BY71jAGz61ZNCTqg5LciiUrW+4xVF90QDIA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737371918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=t8lbNI8l8J6K8X/eX/eTvMGEXbRIqa3MAyfuLyY4LBU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ui2hapd/5S8Hnnt3QVYY7jAuaHbRiLOC39Yp+w37mKFNZWGcRvlBBjK8ngVo+rAf6JkuP2Hd0HiDfjZfAMY0GICMZlTBLplbvQQll3aoHlcviHMjyXXdck2Ws9A9QX8egPr5VbSH7dykTVAMMgiI9OHZS4efBfqGULcqED1Mno8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b=Zmp9hjhV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b="Zmp9hjhV" Received: from gaggiata.pivistrello.it (93-49-2-63.ip317.fastwebnet.it [93.49.2.63]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1C44E1FC0F; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:12:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1737371536; bh=AmRqvCfczjNBxPeTdKZqx5x0NqI8hK/m2GHaetg4oPo=; h=Received:From:To:Subject; b=Zmp9hjhVx745w2orzuWU+CXWghsmvavFtV9yMBVaLMJP0s8MXk5xjiFD5oSB5Bql8 H3YncaOtJUpM5An/isWtUFzNM2a988j2NkodVrt6iLiRkOpHoFx/MDoxHYjw65n0B1 faBgIO8Ifss8w421NfgUK3mkC7A7T8vHEGsXwb/V+CPd9JhJ73vsI8Ntx8lm1cwjqi qo0DThHxlLkqRTpMSoXyIvD0AtRpsM5cyqAzkyv8MV9lg4VCO/e1r2WwMLGVNxd9TP kPu4RL/2agzgzxBp5I+XtzgJ8SCOeuvg+6b/ufFfSnpc6aPYbJdnGRTPxNkzLKWWp8 hNBGA2dLE+6Yg== Received: by gaggiata.pivistrello.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0D177F96E; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:12:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:12:15 +0100 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Jeff Chen Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, briannorris@chromium.org, kvalo@kernel.org, francesco@dolcini.it, tsung-hsien.hsieh@nxp.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] wifi: mwifiex: Fix the wrong hardware setting for HT40. Message-ID: References: <20250120074011.720358-1-jeff.chen_1@nxp.com> <20250120074011.720358-2-jeff.chen_1@nxp.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250120074011.720358-2-jeff.chen_1@nxp.com> Hello Jeff, thanks for the patch. On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:40:11PM +0800, Jeff Chen wrote: > Add the missing bandwidth configuration for HT40. Can you expand this a little bit? - Is this a regression? - What is the impact of this missing configuration? It's not working at all? It's working in some unexpected way (please explain)? - Should this backported to stable (probably given the answer before it should be obvious the answer to this question)? Anything else worth mentioning? > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Chen > --- > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c > index 66f0f5377ac1..4ae0b4aaa09a 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ mwifiex_cmd_append_11n_tlv(struct mwifiex_private *priv, > int ret_len = 0; > struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband; > struct ieee_types_header *hdr; > - u8 radio_type; > + u8 radio_type, secch_offset; > > if (!buffer || !*buffer) > return ret_len; > @@ -401,13 +401,15 @@ mwifiex_cmd_append_11n_tlv(struct mwifiex_private *priv, > chan_list->chan_scan_param[0].radio_type = > mwifiex_band_to_radio_type((u8) bss_desc->bss_band); > > - if (sband->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40 && > - bss_desc->bcn_ht_oper->ht_param & > - IEEE80211_HT_PARAM_CHAN_WIDTH_ANY) > - SET_SECONDARYCHAN(chan_list->chan_scan_param[0]. > - radio_type, > - (bss_desc->bcn_ht_oper->ht_param & > - IEEE80211_HT_PARAM_CHA_SEC_OFFSET)); > + if (sband->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40) { > + if (bss_desc->bcn_ht_oper->ht_param & IEEE80211_HT_PARAM_CHAN_WIDTH_ANY) { > + chan_list->chan_scan_param[0].radio_type |= (CHAN_BW_40MHZ << 2); setting `radio_type |= (CHAN_BW_40MHZ << 2)` seems the only real change on this patch, correct? Anything else is cosmetic, correct? would doing just this change be equivalent, right? SET_SECONDARYCHAN(chan_list->chan_scan_param[0]. radio_type | (CHAN_BW_40MHZ << 2), (bss_desc->bcn_ht_oper->ht_param & IEEE80211_HT_PARAM_CHA_SEC_OFFSET)); Francesco