Hi Johannes,
Thanks for the comments
On 2016-12-13 21:39, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > /**
> > + * wiphy_btcoex_support_flags
> > + * This enum has the driver supported frame types for
> > BTCOEX.
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BE_PREFERRED - Supports Best Effort frame for
> > BTCOEX
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BK_PREFERRED - supports Background frame for
> > BTCOEX
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_VI_PREFERRED - supports Video frame for BTCOEX
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_VO_PREFERRED - supports Voice frame for BTCOEX
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BEACON_PREFERRED - supports Beacon frame for
> > BTCOEX
> > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_MGMT_PREFERRED - supports Management frames for
> > BTCOEX.
> > + */
>
> That's not making much sense to me?
>
is it fine to have as WIPHY_BTCOEX_BE_PREFERRED ?
It's not really clear to me what you intend to do this - if it's really
support flags then you really should name those better.
This is support flags and it used by the driver to intimate driver
supported frame type
for the BTCOEX to cfg like "wiphy_wowlan_support_flags" implementation.
Please suggest if this is ok ? I will be thankful if you can suggest a
better one if this is not ok
"WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE"
> > +/**
> > + * enum wiphy_btcoex_priority - BTCOEX priority level
> > + * This enum defines priority level for BTCOEX
> > + * WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_LOW - low priority frames over BT
> > traffic
> > + * WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_HIGH - high priority frames over BT
> > traffic
> > + */
> > +
> > +enum wiphy_btcoex_priority {
> > + WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_LOW = false,
> > + WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_HIGH = true,
> > +};
>
> That false/true seems just strange.
>
I will just use as a enum without assigning false/true.
What do you even need this enum for though?
Ok. I will directly assign true for the flag.
> > +enum nl80211_btcoex_priority {
> > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_INVALID,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_BE_PREFERRED,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_BK_PREFERRED,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_VI_PREFERRED,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_VO_PREFERRED,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_BEACON_PREFERRED,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_MGMT_PREFERRED,
> > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_LAST,
> > + NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_MAX =
> > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_LAST - 1,
> > +};
>
> Wouldn't a bitmap be easier?
>
since this is to distinguish between different btcoex priorities and
we
are not going to do any manipulations on these parameters.
It is just used as flag attribute.
But why the (parsing) complexity, when a single bitmap would do?
Do you mean to say, sending a value from user space and parse that in
the driver?
