Hi Johannes,
Thanks for your comments.
On 2016-12-16 15:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 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"
Well, I see a few things here:
1) does it even make sense to split it out per AC? wouldn't it be weird
if you supported this only for VO and BK, and not the others, or
something like that?
It has support for BE, VI, management and beacon frames also.
Or do you meant to say like support only for VO and BK?
2) Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in nl80211 and just pass
the bitmap through to userspace? That would save quite a bit of netlink
mangling complexity.
Please let me know if the below design/thought is fine to you.
iw phyX set btcoex_priority <[vi, vo, be, bk, mgmt, beacon]>
By this command user should give one or more than one frame types for
this btcoex priority,
we will parse that in "iw" and send as a single bitmap(less than 0x64)
to
the driver?
3) I think the naming is confusing - "WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE_PREF" or
so might be more appropriate?
If the above suggestion is fine, we may not need these flags.
Do you mean to say, sending a value from user space and parse that
in the driver?
I was more thinking of the capability advertisement, but yeah, both
ways seems reasonable.
Okay.
Thanks,
Tamizh.
