On 2020-11-05 01:48, Brian Norris wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:44 AM Carl Huang <cjhuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 2020-09-28 20:36, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 13:49 +0800, Carl Huang wrote: >> +struct cfg80211_sar_freq_ranges { >> + u8 index; > > Does an index here make sense? > With agreement from Google, it's OK to remove it.I'm not sure "Google" is the arbiter of the nl80211 API, even if we are the current planned users ;) But I think I agree with Johannes, that given the other plans (user space must send all bands all the time; dropping the "apply to all bands" support), an index isn't really necessary in either the user space API or the internal representation handed down to drivers. All bands should be specified, in order. Brian
The index here will be removed. But let's keep the explicit index in SET command. I think it adds no burden to userspace but has flexibility to skip some ranges as we remove "all or nothing" limitation.
>> + u32 start_freq; >> + u32 end_freq; >> +};
