Hi Johannes,
Sorry for the late response:(
On 2017-01-09 16:06, Johannes Berg wrote:
Is it fine to have something like this
1) We can have this btcoex_priority value as a optional value in
btcoex enable command like below
iw phyX btcoex_state <enable| disable> [prirority(vendor spcific
value)]
2) Or we can have seperate command for btcoex_priority as below
iw phyX set btcoex_priority <priority (vendor spcific value)>
Hopefully this will get rid off all the nl80211 bits.
That makes no sense.
If the bits are vendor specific, then there's no value in having this
as an nl80211 command (rather than a vendor command) to start with.
You need to understand that I'm differentiating between *capability*
bits and actual *priority setting* bits - please re-read the thread
with that in mind.
Those are for priority and not for capability purpose. Hardware is
capable of
transmitting all the frames when there is a bt traffic. This is just
setting priority for the wlan
frame, when there is a contention with BT traffic which one has to go
out first.
Other than that hardware has the capability of sending all the frames.
This priority field is optional, if users does not want to set any
priority then driver will force the
default priorities when bt_coex is enabled
iw phyX btcoex_state <enable| disable> [prirority]
