On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
You're absolutely right.
I'll send another version of the patch that will have a flag and
bitmap in the wiphy struct.
>
> johannes
>
>
Guy.
--
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
