"Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 ? Sorry, too many patches... > 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. Yeah, I only took a quick glimpse but Jeff's proposal does make sense. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
