On Feb 4, 2008 2:08 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tomas Winkler wrote: > > >> Hmm? Not quite sure what you're asking. The tx_control has a pointer to > >> the bitrate right now so that contains what bitrate the rate control > >> algorithm selected (whether or not the hw downscales by itself). > > > > So we add rate flags and pointer to bit rate structure? > > Correct? > > I thought we just agreed not to because they're not bit rate but rather > rate control specific. Think of it this way: the rate control algorithm > selects a bitrate and those control flags you mentioned (SISO/MIMO/...), > right? > > So the rate control algorithm has to communicate the bitrate and the flags > to the hardware. It currently communicates the bitrate selection by giving > a bitrate structure pointer (it could simply give the bitrate in kbps or > whatever but that would mean the driver needs to look up its hw_value so > this is the reason for passing the pointer) and cannot currently > communicate the control flags selection. > > So the way I see it we'd add something like "u32 rate_control_flags" to > struct tx_control for the flags you wanted, and also add a similar field > (to be able to reuse the flag definitions) to the tx status & rx status > structs. It seems to me that makes most sense, no? I think we're talking about the same > johannes > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
