On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 19:26 +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.
Yeah but if you add a wiphy flag and the bits into struct wiphy, then
you can save the function pointer which seems nicer?
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
