On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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).
When this is not supported a -EOPNOTSUPP should be returned.
A 0 return means that it is supported.
I now see that I have a small mistake in the patch regarding this.
The check should be (res >= 0) and not (!res).
I'll fix it.
>
> 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
