On 24-1-2017 12:28, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 24-1-2017 9:57, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 14:08 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> >>> On 19-1-2017 13:00, Luca Coelho wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>>> For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number >>>>> of >>>>> matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit >>>>> for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, >>>>> is >>>>> used for the net-detect case as well. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P >>> >>> Actually I have, but your comment mentioned they do not have to be >>> the >>> same. brcmfmac actually did not set max_nd_match_sets so I was >>> surprised >>> it worked. That said this patch will result in regression in brcmfmac >>> :-p Not sure about other drivers supporting net-detect. >> >> So do you want to submit a patch to brcmfmac first, and then I'll apply >> this later? I can apply it and break it, but now that we already know >> ...? > > I have a brcmfmac patch in the queue. I will look at the other scheduled > scan supporting drivers. Hi Johannes, I actually have two dependent brcmfmac patches. Do you expect conflict if Kalle takes all? Regards, Arend
