On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 16:20 +0100, Holger Schurig wrote: > > RSSI as defined in 802.11 as a positive 8-bit value; the > > libertas firmware also reports the RSSI in scan results as a > > u8. So I'd suggest a u8 instead of an int; an int isn't the > > right thing to do here. > > "struct bss_descriptor" has nothing to do with hardware, > otherwise you would see __le32 there. Using an "u8" saves us > nothing, except we move all u8's at the end of the struct. But > this would give us unaligned u8's and some processors have > problems with that. I still don't want an int used for a value that should never be unsigned... I don't particularly care what size it is as long as its unsigned. Otherwise, we should be calling it RSSI at all. Either it's unsigned+RSSI or signed+dBm, but in the signed+dBm case we'd have to actually _convert_ it to dBm too. Dan -- 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
