On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:53 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> This patch add spectrum capability and required information >> elements to association request providing AP has requested it and >> it is supported by the driver > > Why bother splitting this up into two patches, the Kconfig option isn't > even being used? It will be. >> + if ((bss->capability & WLAN_CAPABILITY_SPECTRUM_MGMT) && >> + (local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_SPECTRUM_MGMT)) >> + capab |= WLAN_CAPABILITY_SPECTRUM_MGMT; > > Why do we need a hardware capability flag for this? The only thing you > seem to be doing with it is determine whether to send the power > capability IE? > Will you follow up with more patches to enable radar detection and > things like that, and shouldn't we merge that as one series? This looks > sane enough, but it seems hard to judge whether or not it's actually the > best way to do things. > > What else will depend on the hw capability flag? > We need driver support mainly for quiet period and channel switch.(patches will follow) Not sure how the precise timing will be handled in mac80211. So we don't advertise spectrum capability to AP if we cannot handle 11h actions. Don't mind that this will be applied as series. Just sending this out to get some feedback on the way maybe I should mark them as RFCs Thanks for review Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
