> Is there much point in having 4 rather than just 2 patches? > [Tamizh] Yes, I agree to it. > > > + int (*set_btcoex)(struct wiphy *wiphy, bool enabled, > > + int btcoex_priority); > > Shouldn't that be u32 as a bitmap? > [Tamizh] Yes. > > + bool btcoex_priority_support; > > Why not use an extended nl80211 feature flag directly? > [Tamizh] Ok sure. I'll use extended nl80211 feature flag. > > + * @NL80211_ATTR_BTCOEX_PRIORITY: This is for the driver which > > + * support btcoex priority feature. It used with > > %NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX. > > + * This will have u32 BITMAP value which represents > > + * frame(bk, be, vi, vo, mgmt, beacon) type and that will have > > more > > + * priority than a BT traffic. > > I think you need to define the bits somewhere in an enum - i.e. which one is VO, > VI, ... > [Tamizh] ok sure. Is this for documentation purpose or do you want me to use that enum for something else? > > + int btcoex_priority = -1; > > That -1 is pretty useless, if the driver doesn't support it, hopefully it won't look > at the value at all? > [Tamizh] Ok sure
