Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 08/12] cfg80211: S1G rate flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/10/2022 6:08 PM, Kieran Frewen wrote:
Increase the size of S1G rate_info flags to support S1G. Add flags for new
S1G bandwidths and S1G MCS.

Signed-off-by: Kieran Frewen <kieran.frewen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Bassem Dawood <bassem@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  include/net/cfg80211.h | 14 +++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/net/cfg80211.h b/include/net/cfg80211.h
index 7859b8b11968..47f71fb5d07a 100644
--- a/include/net/cfg80211.h
+++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
@@ -1608,6 +1608,7 @@ int cfg80211_check_station_change(struct wiphy *wiphy,
   * @RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EDMG: 60GHz MCS in EDMG mode
   * @RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EXTENDED_SC_DMG: 60GHz extended SC MCS
   * @RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EHT_MCS: EHT MCS information
+ * @RATE_INFO_FLAGS_S1G_MCS: mcs field filled with S1G MCS

nit: s/mcs/MCS/

   */
  enum rate_info_flags {
  	RATE_INFO_FLAGS_MCS			= BIT(0),
@@ -1618,6 +1619,7 @@ enum rate_info_flags {
  	RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EDMG			= BIT(5),
  	RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EXTENDED_SC_DMG		= BIT(6),
  	RATE_INFO_FLAGS_EHT_MCS			= BIT(7),
+	RATE_INFO_FLAGS_S1G_MCS                 = BIT(8),
  };
/**
@@ -1634,6 +1636,11 @@ enum rate_info_flags {
   * @RATE_INFO_BW_HE_RU: bandwidth determined by HE RU allocation
   * @RATE_INFO_BW_320: 320 MHz bandwidth
   * @RATE_INFO_BW_EHT_RU: bandwidth determined by EHT RU allocation
+ * @RATE_INFO_BW_1: 1 MHz bandwidth
+ * @RATE_INFO_BW_2: 2 MHz bandwidth
+ * @RATE_INFO_BW_4: 4 MHz bandwidth
+ * @RATE_INFO_BW_8: 8 MHz bandwidth
+ * @RATE_INFO_BW_16: 16 MHz bandwidth
   */
  enum rate_info_bw {
  	RATE_INFO_BW_20 = 0,
@@ -1645,6 +1652,11 @@ enum rate_info_bw {
  	RATE_INFO_BW_HE_RU,
  	RATE_INFO_BW_320,
  	RATE_INFO_BW_EHT_RU,
+	RATE_INFO_BW_1,
+	RATE_INFO_BW_2,
+	RATE_INFO_BW_4,
+	RATE_INFO_BW_8,
+	RATE_INFO_BW_16,
  };
/**
@@ -1667,7 +1679,7 @@ enum rate_info_bw {
   *	only valid if bw is %RATE_INFO_BW_EHT_RU)
   */
  struct rate_info {
-	u8 flags;
+	u16 flags;
  	u8 mcs;
  	u16 legacy;
  	u8 nss;

should we group legacy with flags so that the two u16s are adjacent?
note unfortunately we can't avoid padding




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux