On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 12:59 +0530, Karthikeyan Periyasamy wrote:
>
> + * When describing per-hardware combinations in multi-hardware in
> + * one wiphy model, the first possibility can further include the finer
> + * capabilities like below
Not sure I'd say "below" rather than e.g. "like this:"
> + * hw_chan_idx = 0, numbers = [ #{STA} <= 1, #{AP} <= 1 ],
> + * channels = 1, max = 2
> + * => allows a STA plus an AP interface on the underlying hardware mac
> + * advertised at index 0 in wiphy @hw_chans array.
> + * hw_chan_idx = 1, numbers = [ #{STA} <= 1, #{AP} <= 2 ],
> + * channels = 1, max = 3
> + * => allows a STA plus two AP interfaces on the underlying hardware mac
> + * advertised at index 1 in wiphy @hw_chans array.
Have you checked the rst output for this? Seems likely that's not going
to be great with that formatting, but I haven't checked.
> + * @NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_HW_IDX: u8 attribute specifying the index
> + * to the wiphy @hw_chans list for which the iface combination is being
> + * described.
"@hw_chans" doesn't make sense here, this is nl80211, it should refer to
some attribute
but why didn't you just _say_ in the patch 2 discussion that it's used
here ...
> + * @NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_LIMITS: nested attribute containing the
> + * limits for the given interface types, see
> + * &enum nl80211_iface_limit_attrs.
> + * @NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_MAXIMUM: u32 attribute giving the maximum
> + * number of interfaces that can be created in this group. This number
> + * does not apply to the interfaces purely managed in software.
> + * @NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_NUM_CHANNELS: u32 attribute specifying the
> + * number of different channels that can be used in this group.
> + * @NUM_NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB: number of attributes
> + * @MAX_NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB: highest attribute number
> + */
> +enum nl80211_if_comb_per_hw_comb_attrs {
> + NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_UNSPEC,
> + NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_HW_IDX,
> + NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_LIMITS,
> + NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_MAXIMUM,
> + NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB_NUM_CHANNELS,
Almost all these attributes duplicate - including their docs -
attributes from enum nl80211_if_combination_attrs. Is it really worth
doing that, rather than adding NL80211_IFACE_COMB_HW_IDX and documenting
the different uses of the attribute set?
> + hw_combis = nla_nest_start(msg, NL80211_IFACE_COMB_PER_HW_COMB);
> + if (!hw_combis)
> + return -ENOBUFS;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < c->n_hw_list; i++) {
> + struct nlattr *hw_combi, *limits;
> +
> + hw_combi = nla_nest_start(msg, i + 1);
And of course the array and splitting discussions apply here too.
johannes
