On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct ieee80211_channel *ch;
>>>> + struct cfg80211_chan_def chandef;
>>>> + struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = wiphy_to_rdev(wiphy);
>>>> + bool ret = true;
>>>> +
>>>> + wdev_lock(wdev);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!wdev->netdev || !netif_running(wdev->netdev))
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (wdev->iftype) {
>>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
>>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_GO:
>>>> + if (!wdev->beacon_interval)
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = cfg80211_reg_can_beacon(wiphy,
>>>> + &wdev->chandef, wdev->iftype);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION:
>>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT:
>>>> + if (!wdev->current_bss ||
>>>> + !wdev->current_bss->pub.channel)
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + ch = wdev->current_bss->pub.channel;
>>>> + if (rdev->ops->get_channel &&
>>>> + !rdev_get_channel(rdev, wdev, &chandef))
>>>> + ret = cfg80211_chandef_usable(wiphy, &chandef,
>>>> + IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>>>> + else
>>>> + ret = !(ch->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + /* others not implemented for now */
>>>
>>> Looks good to me except this of course, since its a flag that will
>>> enable this per wiphy might as well WARN() if you really do not want
>>> to think about this. That means that once someone does enable this on
>>> a wiphy with the other type of interfaces they'll have to think about
>>> this, likewise one could warn if a wiphy interface is registered with
>>> the flag to follow this but supports a mode not handled here yet.
>>
>> But I do want to support a wiphy that has other modes
>> (NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC), but I don't want people to get warnings every
>> time they use IBSS.
>> Maybe I'll rename the flag to REGULATORY_ENFORCE_AP_STA_CHANNELS?
>
> Then it depends on how important this feature is for your regulatory
> requirements. If its important then I'd wait until its properly
> implemented, if its not required for the other modes then a simple
> information message would suffice.
Let's settle for the pr_info then.
Arik
--
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
