On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 09:22 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> > We can't, but can't we like assign sdata->ht_caps = sband->ht_caps? Or
> > maybe even calculate restricted HT caps for both 2.4 and 5 GHz?
> > Basically what I was thinking is this:
>
> > struct sub_if_data {
> > ...
> > struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap ht_cap[num_bands];
> > ...
> > };
>
> So we'd have to copy this data from sbands[] upon creation
> of the interface to make sure it is always initialized?
> This would allow us to easily support the overrides for
> non-station interfaces, so I do like that benefit.
>
> Can the sbands[] data ever change for any reason once
> an interface is created? If not, then probably this is
> doable. If it can change, then we are screwed.
I don't think it can change but it's not const (I think?) so drivers
might do stupid things -- but that would be buggy anyway.
> It seems you are basically wanting to copy the sband[] data
> local to each interface (sdata), and then we would remove sband from most
> (or all?) of the method calls that deal with sband->ht_caps?
I guess. Though we still need the band to know which one to use (I'm
reluctant to say we just need one due to channel switching etc.)
> Looks like quite a bit of code churn, and probably requiring at least two
> patches:
> * Get rid of sband usage by copying the sband data into sdata
> * Add the over-ride logic
Yeah. It might be *too much* churn, but that's what I was thinking. If
you think it's likely too much churn let's go with what you have now,
there are only a few minor things about it I don't like much.
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
