HT flags don't really make sense when applied to S1G channels
especially given the bandwidths both used for calculations and
conveyed (i.e 20MHz). Similarly with the 80/160/..MHz channels,
each bonded subchannel is validated individually within
cfg80211_s1g_usable(), so the regulatory validation is similarly
redundant. Additionally, usermode application output (such as iwinfo
below) doesn't particularly make sense when enumerating S1G channels:
before:
925.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 47) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ]
926.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 49) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ]
927.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 51) [NO_HT40+, NO_HT40-, NO_16MHZ, NO_PRIMARY]
after:
925.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 47) [NO_16MHZ]
926.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 49) [NO_16MHZ]
927.500 MHz (Band: 900 MHz, Channel 51) [NO_16MHZ, NO_PRIMARY]
Don't process the S1G band when applying HT flags as both the regulatory
component is redundant and the flags don't make sense for S1G channels.
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Hodges <lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260113030934.18726-1-lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
if (!wiphy)
return;
- for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++)
+ for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++) {
+ /*
+ * Don't apply HT flags to channels within the S1G band.
+ * Each bonded channel will instead be validated individually
+ * within cfg80211_s1g_usable().
+ */
+ if (band == NL80211_BAND_S1GHZ)
+ continue;
+
reg_process_ht_flags_band(wiphy, wiphy->bands[band]);
+ }
}
static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)