[PATCH v2 05/13] wifi: mt76: mt7925: advertise EHT 320MHz capabilities for 6GHz band
Sean Wang
sean.wang at kernel.org
Tue Mar 24 12:24:58 PDT 2026
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:26 PM Javier Tia <floss at jetm.me> wrote:
>
> mt7925_init_eht_caps() only populates EHT MCS/NSS maps for BW <= 80
> and BW = 160, but never sets BW = 320. This means iw phy shows no
> 320MHz MCS map entries even though the hardware supports 320MHz
> operation in the 6GHz band.
>
> Add the missing 320MHz capability bits for 6GHz, following the same
> pattern as mt7996:
> - PHY_CAP0: IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_320MHZ_IN_6GHZ
> - PHY_CAP1: beamformee SS for 320MHz
> - PHY_CAP2: sounding dimensions for 320MHz
> - PHY_CAP6: MCS15 support for 320MHz width
> - PHY_CAP7: non-OFDMA UL MU-MIMO and MU beamformer for 320MHz
> - MCS/NSS: populate bw._320 maps for 6GHz band
>
> Introduce is_320mhz_supported() as a generic capability check using the
> mt7925 family ID. This avoids chip-specific references in common code,
> and automatically extends to new chips once they join the
> is_mt7925() family via chip ID helpers.
>
> Tested-by: Marcin FM <marcin at lgic.pl>
> Tested-by: Cristian-Florin Radoi <radoi.chris at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: George Salukvadze <giosal90 at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Evgeny Kapusta <3193631 at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Samu Toljamo <samu.toljamo at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ariel Rosenfeld <ariel.rosenfeld.750 at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Chapuis Dario <chapuisdario4 at gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Thibaut François <tibo at humeurlibre.fr>
> Tested-by: 张旭涵 <Loong.0x00 at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Tia <floss at jetm.me>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76_connac.h | 5 +++++
> drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76_connac.h b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76_connac.h
> index 813d61bffc2c..554716e01ee6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76_connac.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt76_connac.h
> @@ -177,6 +177,11 @@ static inline bool is_mt7925(struct mt76_dev *dev)
> return mt76_chip(dev) == 0x7925;
> }
>
> +static inline bool is_320mhz_supported(struct mt76_dev *dev)
> +{
> + return is_mt7925(dev);
I don't think this is correct for mt7925, and it will cause a
regression there. Was this tested on actual mt7925 hardware?
> +}
> +
> static inline bool is_mt7920(struct mt76_dev *dev)
> {
> return mt76_chip(dev) == 0x7920;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c
> index f128a198f81d..cd043ac266fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mediatek/mt76/mt7925/main.c
> @@ -183,6 +183,10 @@ mt7925_init_eht_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy, enum nl80211_band band,
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_SU_BEAMFORMER |
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_SU_BEAMFORMEE;
>
> + if (band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && is_320mhz_supported(&phy->dev->mt76))
> + eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[0] |=
> + IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_320MHZ_IN_6GHZ;
> +
> eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[0] |=
> u8_encode_bits(u8_get_bits(sts - 1, BIT(0)),
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP0_BEAMFORMEE_SS_80MHZ_MASK);
> @@ -193,10 +197,20 @@ mt7925_init_eht_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy, enum nl80211_band band,
> u8_encode_bits(sts - 1,
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP1_BEAMFORMEE_SS_160MHZ_MASK);
>
> + if (band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && is_320mhz_supported(&phy->dev->mt76))
> + eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[1] |=
> + u8_encode_bits(sts - 1,
> + IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP1_BEAMFORMEE_SS_320MHZ_MASK);
> +
> eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[2] =
> u8_encode_bits(sts - 1, IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP2_SOUNDING_DIM_80MHZ_MASK) |
> u8_encode_bits(sts - 1, IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP2_SOUNDING_DIM_160MHZ_MASK);
>
> + if (band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && is_320mhz_supported(&phy->dev->mt76))
> + eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[2] |=
> + u8_encode_bits(sts - 1,
> + IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP2_SOUNDING_DIM_320MHZ_MASK);
> +
> eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[3] =
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP3_NG_16_SU_FEEDBACK |
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP3_NG_16_MU_FEEDBACK |
> @@ -217,7 +231,8 @@ mt7925_init_eht_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy, enum nl80211_band band,
> u8_encode_bits(u8_get_bits(0x11, GENMASK(1, 0)),
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP5_MAX_NUM_SUPP_EHT_LTF_MASK);
>
> - val = width == NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160 ? 0x7 :
> + val = width == NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_320 ? 0xf :
> + width == NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160 ? 0x7 :
> width == NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_80 ? 0x3 : 0x1;
> eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[6] =
> u8_encode_bits(u8_get_bits(0x11, GENMASK(4, 2)),
> @@ -230,6 +245,11 @@ mt7925_init_eht_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy, enum nl80211_band band,
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP7_MU_BEAMFORMER_80MHZ |
> IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP7_MU_BEAMFORMER_160MHZ;
>
> + if (band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && is_320mhz_supported(&phy->dev->mt76))
> + eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[7] |=
> + IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP7_NON_OFDMA_UL_MU_MIMO_320MHZ |
> + IEEE80211_EHT_PHY_CAP7_MU_BEAMFORMER_320MHZ;
> +
I don't think this should be copied from mt7996 as-is for mt7927. I'd
suggest dropping the eht_cap_elem->phy_cap_info[7] change and keeping
it conservative for now.
> val = u8_encode_bits(nss, IEEE80211_EHT_MCS_NSS_RX) |
> u8_encode_bits(nss, IEEE80211_EHT_MCS_NSS_TX);
>
> @@ -239,6 +259,12 @@ mt7925_init_eht_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy, enum nl80211_band band,
> eht_nss->bw._160.rx_tx_mcs9_max_nss = val;
> eht_nss->bw._160.rx_tx_mcs11_max_nss = val;
> eht_nss->bw._160.rx_tx_mcs13_max_nss = val;
> +
> + if (band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && is_320mhz_supported(&phy->dev->mt76)) {
> + eht_nss->bw._320.rx_tx_mcs9_max_nss = val;
> + eht_nss->bw._320.rx_tx_mcs11_max_nss = val;
> + eht_nss->bw._320.rx_tx_mcs13_max_nss = val;
> + }
> }
>
> int mt7925_init_mlo_caps(struct mt792x_phy *phy)
>
> --
> 2.53.0
>
>
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list