On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 10:16 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > Fair enough. I think what I'm really after is having a way to know wtf > > we're using when you requested something. That would probably be more > > useful overall. ok. > The current ht_cap settings for each station are in debugfs, so hopefully it > would not be that difficult to add it to a netlink response. Perhaps > it's already there..I haven't looked yet. > > > FWIW, I did talk to some people at the kernel summit about the -EINVAL > > thing and maybe there's an idea to send back the invalid attribute at > > least, but doesn't really matter here. I'm OK with just allowing it all > > since it's not going to be used a lot anyway. > > Ok, I'll add some printks. I really don't think you should add printks here for this. > > OTOH, if you request a connect(), you don't even know the band and > > technically a driver could have different capabilities on different > > bands. > > Lets see if any other drivers try to support these features. Anyone > doing that work will likely see some ways to make use of common code > and things can be shuffled then. As written, the patches are not overly > invasive, so I think we can move stuff around later without too much > trouble. Ok, fair enough. 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
