Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:56:07 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> Cc: freebsd-wireless <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Correct net80211 channel flag. Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomNCC_cvF249Xbznh4nqbranvduNqdEUkViZdLoD_aoFg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <tencent_89C560047561F9B8CCA8254232A98F5EC40A@qq.com> References: <tencent_2D16BB0B925A1EA4B4BAD2454A8C4F503F06@qq.com> <CAJ-Vmon8yS5D0Q6QdCNLC9VWoKG_tuP_HLrLGzNJjhNWhXLXNA@mail.gmail.com> <tencent_89C560047561F9B8CCA8254232A98F5EC40A@qq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi!
Oh, so from what I recall, implementations got it wrong in the early
draft days with their interop so the flag values changed.
-adrian
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 20:45, qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I see.
>
> I am newly to freebsd, thanks for your answering.
> I had tried using this section of code and found these flags are not sati=
sfied, after changing them, I can negotiate VHT80, VHT160 fine with iwm, so=
I pointed out this problem. I am also wondering what's the badly wrong of =
you said in draft VHT implementation?
>
> thanks
> zxystd
>
> > 2021=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881:26=EF=BC=8CAdria=
n Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> >
> > hm!
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 08:02, qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This patch corrects ieee80211_vht_get_vhtcap_ie for 160/80P80 channel =
width recognition.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h b/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
> >> index 86ab1459cca..76c43629b33 100644
> >> --- a/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
> >> +++ b/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
> >> @@ -811,9 +811,9 @@ struct ieee80211_ie_vht_operation {
> >> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK 0x0000000C
> >> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK_S 2
> >> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_NONE 0
> >> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160MHZ 1
> >> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160_80P80MHZ 2
> >> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_RESERVED 3
> >> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160MHZ 4
> >> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160_80P80MHZ 8
> >> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_RESERVED 16
> >>
> >> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_IS_160MHZ(_vhtcaps) =
\
> >> (_IEEE80211_MASKSHIFT(_vhtcaps, IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_M=
ASK) >=3D \
> >
> >
> > This is the flag change from the draft 11ac spec to the released 11ac
> > spec, right?
> >
> > I remember they needed to change the flags because existing draft
> > implementations got the 80+80/160MHz negotiation really badly wrong in
> > some interop places...
> >
> >
> > -adrian
> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.=
org"
> >
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomNCC_cvF249Xbznh4nqbranvduNqdEUkViZdLoD_aoFg>