On 3 December 2013 15:24, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 09:50 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
>> Add VHT mcs support for nl80211_set_tx_bitrate_mask().
>
> Do we really need more fine-grained control than 0-7/8/9? Why do we need
> this at all? :)
>
We need this for test purpose. Need to test different MCS/NSS
configurations using our HW (mainly for VHT).
Our HW supports setting TX fixed_rate for legacy/HT/VHT.
So, we decided to use set_tx_bitrate_mask() as the best interface for
that in nl80211.
And after that we realize VHT implementation/change will be needed in
nl80211/iw also.
Because of that I send this VHT patch.
So, we need this :)
>> +#define NL80211_MAX_SUPP_VHT_RATES 80
>
> Where does 80 come from? That seems odd?
>
NSS_MAX (8) * MCS_MAX (10)
Eg.
9 - NSS=1, MCS=9
10 - NSS=2, MCS=0
11 - NSS=2, MCS=1
...
>> + * @NL80211_TXRATE_VHT_MCS: VHT (MCS) rates allowed for TX rate selection
>> + * in an array of MCS numbers.
>
> VHT has no "MCS numbers", so this doesn't make much sense?
>
You mean description only or mcs mask for vht (like above)?
>> if (mask.control[band].legacy == 0) {
>> - /* don't allow empty legacy rates if HT
>> + /* don't allow empty legacy rates if HT and VHT
>> * is not even supported. */
>
> probably should say "are not" now :)
>
yes you right :)
> 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
