On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote: > On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote: > [...] > > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever > > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with > > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield. > > > > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct and > > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks > > except when filling the firmware structure. > > > > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to > > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may > > have a different opinion on this. > > > > /jeff > > No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything. > As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I only care > that this gets resolved. Hi Kalle/Jeff, Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ? Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using the bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wmi.
