Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 11:44:57 +0800 From: qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-wireless <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Correct net80211 channel flag. Message-ID: <tencent_89C560047561F9B8CCA8254232A98F5EC40A@qq.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmon8yS5D0Q6QdCNLC9VWoKG_tuP_HLrLGzNJjhNWhXLXNA@mail.gmail.com> References: <tencent_2D16BB0B925A1EA4B4BAD2454A8C4F503F06@qq.com> <CAJ-Vmon8yS5D0Q6QdCNLC9VWoKG_tuP_HLrLGzNJjhNWhXLXNA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 satisfied, 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年3月30日 上午1:26，Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> 写道：
>
> 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_MASK) >= \
>
>
> 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?tencent_89C560047561F9B8CCA8254232A98F5EC40A>