On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 00:56 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > I think it may be better to handle this in the call that's normally used > > (coverage class setting), but allow the other attribute to make a sort > > of "dynamic coverage class". And internally, calling drivers, it seems > > fine to pass -1 or so since you can extend the datatype there, instead > > of introducing a new internal callback. External/internal doesn't always > > have to match perfectly. > > > > So we can pass coverage class equal to -1 to lower drivers in order to > enable ack timeout estimation. In this case I have to modify driver > routine signature in p54, ath5k and ath9k drivers. Moreover in > cfg80211/mac80211 stack we can take into account dynamic coverage > class using s16 datatype instead of u8 for coverage_class in wiphy > data structure. Right. But that seems reasonable, no? 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
