Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: net: wireless: add flag marvell,ignore-regulatory-hint

On 17/08/2026 12:43, George Valkov wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 11:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 03:50:23PM +0300, Georgi Valkov wrote:
>>> WRT3200ACM and WRT32x routers always report a fixed US regulatory domain
>>> from the mwifiex ROM, which conflicts with the platform regulatory
>>> configuration on units sold outside the US market. For example:
>>> - phy0 mwlwifi 5 GHz, hard-coded region 98 EU mapped to FR
>>> - phy1 mwlwifi 2.4 GHz, hard-coded region 98 EU mapped to FR
>>> - phy2 mwifiex 2.4 and 5 GHz, hard-coded region US
>>
>> v1 as reply to v3 in big thread. How tools can parse that?
> 
> Hello Krzysztof,
> I apologise, I forgot to add the v4 tag to the subject.
> I have documented the changes between each revision.
> I saw my mistake after sending the mail. But I wasn't sure
> what to do? I will make sure to add v5 to my next revision.
> 
>> Does b4 diff work?
>>
>> b4 diff '[email protected]'
> 
> What is b4?

Tool used by maintainers and contributors to handle/send patches. See
korg docs (or just google "What is b4 Linux kernel").


> 
> 
>>> When the system boots, it detects a conflict between the user selected
>>> region and the radios, e.g. BG FR US, and applies extreme restrictions,
>>> preventing use of 5 GHz and DFS channels. This also affects phy0.
>>>
>>> Add a device-tree flag, which allows affected platforms to ignore
>>> an incorrect regulatory hint from ROM, so userspace can set the
>>> correct platform regulatory domain.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/kaloz/mwlwifi/issues/173#issuecomment-307879699
>>> [2] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/issues/9956
>>>
>>> Tested-on: WRT3200ACM, OpenWrt
>>
>> Not a valid tag, drop.
> 
> I believe the tag is helpful because it describes that my changes
> have been tested on a certain device and platform. It's a common
> practice in OpenWrt contributions. My last two accepted patches
> have this tag. Should I still remove it?

Drop the tag everywhere and instead on the patches which were possible
to be tested mention how did you test it.

> 
> 
>> And you cannot even do that, otherwise explain me
>> how did your device execute THIS (exactly THIS) code?
> 
> I am not used to your terminology and this gets me completely confused.
> You have not quoted any particular code change, so I'm not sure what
> you are referring to. Here is a summary of the patch series:

Tested means executing or parsing or using the code on the device under
test. How can you execute/parse/use this code on the device?

> 
> Patch 1 documents a new flag: marvell,ignore-regulatory-hint.
> Patch 2 adds a device-tree node with the radio and the flag.
> Patch 3 skips the regulatory_hint() call when the flag is set.

I can read your patchsets and above does not proof how can you test binding.

> 
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>
>> Drop, what is the bug being fixed here?
> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof