On 6/18/2018 1:54 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 at 12:48, Arend van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/30/2018 1:52 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
I'm providing extra version info of tested firmware images as requested
by Arend in another e-mail thread.
Looking into our firmware repo it there are two flags, ie. WL_MONITOR
and WL_RADIOTAP. It seems both are set for firmware containing -stamon-
feature. Your list below confirms that. I still plan to add indication
for WL_RADIOTAP in the "cap" iovar, but a stamon feature check could be
used for older firmwares.
The problem is that there isn't a direct mapping between what's
visible with the "tail" command and what firmware returns for the
"cap" iovar. Just to be sure I bumped #define MAX_CAPS_BUFFER_SIZE to
1024. Firmware that has "stamon" when checked with "tail" command
doesn't report "stamon" over "cap" iovar. So I can't detect if
firmware was compiled with WL_MONITOR and WL_RADIOTAP using "cap"
iovar.
All true. My suggestion is to look for "monitor" and "rtap" in the "cap"
iovar response to detect if firmware is compiled with WL_MONITOR and
WL_RADIOTAP respectively. When one (or both) of these is not detected,
we could fallback to try a stamon iovar and if it is supported enable
both WL_MONITOR and WL_RADIOTAP. I am looking into a good candidate for
the stamon iovar so I can prepare a patch.
Regards,
Arend
