From: Riccardo Ferrazzo <rferrazzo@came.com>

Some variants of the WF200 disallow active scan on channel 12 and 13.
For these parts, the channels 12 and 13 are marked IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR.

However, the beacon hint procedure was removing the flag
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR from channels where a BSS is discovered. This was
making subsequent scans to fail because the driver was trying active
scans on prohibited channels.

Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wfx/main.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
index d832a22850c7..5999e81dc44d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
@@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ int wfx_probe(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
 	}
 
 	if (wdev->hw_caps.region_sel_mode) {
+		wdev->hw->wiphy->regulatory_flags |= REGULATORY_DISABLE_BEACON_HINTS;
 		wdev->hw->wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_2GHZ]->channels[11].flags |=
 			IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR;
 		wdev->hw->wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_2GHZ]->channels[12].flags |=
-- 
2.34.1

On Friday 18 February 2022 11:53:58 CET Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> From: Riccardo Ferrazzo <rferrazzo@came.com>
> 
> Some variants of the WF200 disallow active scan on channel 12 and 13.
> For these parts, the channels 12 and 13 are marked IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR.
> 
> However, the beacon hint procedure was removing the flag
> IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR from channels where a BSS is discovered. This was
> making subsequent scans to fail because the driver was trying active
> scans on prohibited channels.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>

I forgot to mention I have reviewed on this patch:

Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>

> ---
>  drivers/staging/wfx/main.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
> index d832a22850c7..5999e81dc44d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/main.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ int wfx_probe(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (wdev->hw_caps.region_sel_mode) {
> +		wdev->hw->wiphy->regulatory_flags |= REGULATORY_DISABLE_BEACON_HINTS;
>  		wdev->hw->wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_2GHZ]->channels[11].flags |=
>  			IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR;
>  		wdev->hw->wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_2GHZ]->channels[12].flags |=
> 


-- 
Jérôme Pouiller

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:57:47AM +0100, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Friday 18 February 2022 11:53:58 CET Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > From: Riccardo Ferrazzo <rferrazzo@came.com>
> > 
> > Some variants of the WF200 disallow active scan on channel 12 and 13.
> > For these parts, the channels 12 and 13 are marked IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR.
> > 
> > However, the beacon hint procedure was removing the flag
> > IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR from channels where a BSS is discovered. This was
> > making subsequent scans to fail because the driver was trying active
> > scans on prohibited channels.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
> 
> I forgot to mention I have reviewed on this patch:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>

Reviwed-by is implied with signed-off-by.

But what happened to the signed-off-by from the author of this change?

thanks,

greg k-h

On Friday 18 February 2022 12:00:54 CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:57:47AM +0100, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> > On Friday 18 February 2022 11:53:58 CET Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > From: Riccardo Ferrazzo <rferrazzo@came.com>
> > >
> > > Some variants of the WF200 disallow active scan on channel 12 and 13.
> > > For these parts, the channels 12 and 13 are marked IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR.
> > >
> > > However, the beacon hint procedure was removing the flag
> > > IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR from channels where a BSS is discovered. This was
> > > making subsequent scans to fail because the driver was trying active
> > > scans on prohibited channels.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
> >
> > I forgot to mention I have reviewed on this patch:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
> 
> Reviwed-by is implied with signed-off-by.
> 
> But what happened to the signed-off-by from the author of this change?

The author hasn't used format-patch to transmit this patch.

Riccardo, can you reply to this mail with the mention "Signed-off-by:
Your name <your-mail@dom.com>"? It certifies that you wrote it or
otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch[1].


[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin

Thank you,

-- 
Jérôme Pouiller