On 2018-11-16 09:46, Kalle Valo wrote:
(changing subject for better visibility and trimming Cc)
Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> writes:
On 2018-11-09 15:05, Kalle Valo wrote:
Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> writes:
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
Driver can report IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160MHZ so it's
important to provide valid & complete info about supported bands for
each channel. By default no support for 160 MHz should be assumed
unless
firmware reports it for a given channel later.
This fixes info passed to the userspace. Without that change
userspace
could try to use invalid channel and fail to start an interface.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Should this be queued to 4.20?
That's my suggestion.
I try to mark fixes (patches for currently developed release) with an
extra FIX tag in a subject. Do you have any other method in mind that
would be preferred by you?
Yes, I do see your FIX tag in patchwork:
[ 31] [FIX] brcmfmac: fix reporting support for 160 MHz channels
2018-11-08
But "FIX" is a bit ambigous as not all fixes not go to
wireless-drivers,
they can also go to wireless-drivers-next. So I prefer using the
release
number (or name of the tree) like this:
[PATCH 4.20] brcmfmac: fix reporting support for 160 MHz channels
After seeing your question I added something about this to the wiki
which hopefully helps others:
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#tree_labels
Got it, thanks!
