On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:54 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think it'd make more sense to go the other way around and list the > bandwidths that are _valid_ here, even if I don't see it getting > extended any time soon (anyone working on TVHT? ;-) ) > > But in some way I also have a feeling we _should_ be able to reject this > in cfg80211 already - although it seems that right now we cannot. Hmm. I > guess better to have this validation here now than fail/WARN, but then > I'd like a positive list of allowed values, rather than forbidden ones. Thank you for the feedback. I agree it is clearer to apply a positive list of valid channel widths rather than excluding specific ones. I will update v2 accordingly, and drop NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_20_NOHT from the current patch as well. This ensures only the valid set is accepted, while preventing the WARN_ON from being triggered. Best regards, Moonhee
