On 11-11-14 11:03, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 10:54 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >>> Also, there's a competing approach from QCA that's far more suited. >> >> I probably was not paying attention to it, but would you have a >> reference to this. > > ... digs around in email ... > > http://mid.gmane.org/1343907187-6686-1-git-send-email-qca_vkondrat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Anyway, looking back at that, it wasn't really all that different, just > a bit more complete maybe. Read through the whole thread. It seems some comments from you needed to be addressed and Vladimir wanted to evaluate it. So that was the end of the thread. What did pop up is the wiphy flags vs. nl80211 feature flags. When that comes up it looks like 'potAtoes, potaetoes' to me. So is there are clear design rule for when to use which flag. For me the wiphy object represents the device/firmware and 4-way handshake offload support is determined by what the device/firmware supports. Regards, Arend > johannes > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
