> 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? Yes, it sounds good for me. Moreover using s16 as datatype for coverage_class in wiphy structure allows to detect if dynack is enabled using iw (i.e. iw phy phy0 info) > > johannes > Lorenzo -- UNIX is Sexy: who | grep -i blonde | talk; cd ~; wine; talk; touch; unzip; touch; strip; gasp; finger; gasp; mount; fsck; more; yes; gasp; umount; make clean; sleep -- 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
