On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 15:34 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 15:11 +0200, Guy Eilam wrote:
>
> > +enum nl80211_probe_resp_offload_support_attr {
> > + NL80211_PROBE_RESP_OFFLOAD_SUPPORT_WPS,
> > + NL80211_PROBE_RESP_OFFLOAD_SUPPORT_WPS2,
> > + NL80211_PROBE_RESP_OFFLOAD_SUPPORT_P2P,
> > +};
>
> I think doing = 1<<N here would be nicer to use in drivers & userspace.
Hm, also: should we call this WPS or WSC, and do we need to distinguish
WPS and WPS2? My AP mode patch called it WSC in a different context but
I can change, we just should be consistent.
> > + * @get_probe_resp_offload: Get probe response offload support from driver.
>
> and this seems unnecessary -- why not just put a u32 value into struct
> wiphy?
Oh, and probably a regular WIPHY flag that indicates whether the
attribute should be added at all so that it can also be 0 but present
(presence with 0 value indicates something other than not present).
johannes
--
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
