On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:11:24PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 17:54 +0530, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> More description would be nice. I don't think I get it.
>
> > +++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
> > @@ -128,6 +128,8 @@ enum ieee80211_channel_flags {
> > * @beacon_found: helper to regulatory code to indicate when a beacon
> > * has been found on this channel. Use regulatory_hint_found_beacon()
> > * to enable this, this is useful only on 5 GHz band.
> > + * @is_40mhz_intolerant: one of the bss in this channel disallows the use of
> > + * 20/40 MHz BSS. this will be used by Intolerant Channel Report.
>
> I'm not convinced this should a channel thing here?
>
> > @@ -1746,6 +1749,7 @@ struct wiphy_wowlan_support {
> > * add to probe request frames transmitted during a scan, must not
> > * include fixed IEs like supported rates
> > * @coverage_class: current coverage class
> > + * @dot11FortyMHzIntolerant: Enable/Disable Forty MHz Intolerance
>
> that variable name is ... highly unusual. please make it match its
> surroundings better.
>
OK
> > @@ -1806,6 +1810,7 @@ struct wiphy {
> > u32 frag_threshold;
> > u32 rts_threshold;
> > u8 coverage_class;
> > + bool dot11FortyMHzIntolerant;
>
> Ok so in struct wiphy, to me means that the *driver* said it was 40MHz
> intolerant? That makes no sense, why would the driver want to say that
> *statically*? I can see maybe dynamically, but statically?
>
Yes. I should be set dynamically. As of now, this field is not configurable.
Will send the followup patch for nl80211 support.
> > @@ -412,6 +412,7 @@ struct wiphy *wiphy_new(const struct cfg80211_ops *ops, int sizeof_priv)
> > rdev->wiphy.frag_threshold = (u32) -1;
> > rdev->wiphy.rts_threshold = (u32) -1;
> > rdev->wiphy.coverage_class = 0;
> > + rdev->wiphy.dot11FortyMHzIntolerant = false;
>
> not really necessary, but I guess it's ok.
>
> > @@ -532,6 +533,8 @@ int wiphy_register(struct wiphy *wiphy)
> > sband->ht_cap.cap &= ~IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40;
> > sband->ht_cap.cap &= ~IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_40;
> > }
> > + if (wiphy->dot11FortyMHzIntolerant)
> > + sband->ht_cap.cap |= IEEE80211_HT_CAP_40MHZ_INTOLERANT;
>
> I don't get this. All you use this variable for is setting a
> variable ... that the driver could already have set. Seems completely
> pointless.
>
I agree.
--
Rajkumar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
