> > 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? I mean - does it make sense for a piece of hardware to support only VO/BK, without the others? I don't really see how that would make sense, but maybe I'm missing something? IOW - why have all these bits rather than just one? > > 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]> That seems fine, but I don't see how the iw command line is relevant to the question of whether we pass flag attributes or a bitmap?? > 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? Right, and also to nl80211. Why not? johannes
