On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 12:00 +0000, Otcheretianski, Andrei wrote:
> >
> > When we have "nan_supported_bands", it seems to me these should really be
> > by arbitrary band, and bitmap of bands to enable scan on, or something like
> > that ... also this really applies to the nl80211 API.
>
> NAN synchronization is only defined for 2.4 and 5 GHZ bands.
> Now, "bands" (supported bands) field existed before, and I didn't want to change it.
> Having an array of band_configs imho looks overkill.
Sure, there are any number of things that are not (yet!) defined. I
still don't think that's a good way to do software architecture. We
didn't _need_ to support MLO for P2P, but in software architecture,
handling everything as the currently supported special cases mostly ends
up hurting in my experience.
And Vinay was just also asking for a 6G support flag. Am I supposed to
believe NAN operation there is only unsynchronised, or how does that
match?
> Regarding enable_hb_scan (if this comment refers to this field),
> it can't be for "arbitrary" band, as disabling scanning on 2.4GHz is not allowed.
We can still represent it that way ("scan bands"?) and just forbid
certain values, that's not really much of an argument either?
johannes
