Correct net80211 channel flag.

[qcwap]

Got it, thank you.

zxystd

> 2021年4月2日 下午12:56，Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> 写道：
> 
> 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 at 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 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 at freebsd.org> 写道：
>>> 
>>> hm!
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 08:02, qcwap <1051244836 at 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
>>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>> 
>> 
>