On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 4:38 AM, Victor Goldenshtein wrote:
>>
>> New ieee80211_ap_process_chanswitch(), to handle a channel switch
>> request for AP/GO.
>>
>> New 'post_switch_block_tx' parameter in 'ieee80211_channel_switch'
>> structure, which indicates whether transmission must be blocked after
>> the scheduled channel switch, it should be set if the target channel
>> is DFS channel.
>>
>> New ieee80211_ap_ch_switch_complete_notify() which notifies upper
>> layers about channel switch complete event.
>
>
> Shouldn't mac80211 have some non-offload implementation for this?
>
>
What do you mean by "non-offload"?
>> @@ -841,12 +841,16 @@ struct ieee80211_conf {
>> * the driver passed into mac80211.
>> * @block_tx: Indicates whether transmission must be blocked before the
>> * scheduled channel switch, as indicated by the AP.
>> + * @post_switch_block_tx: Indicates whether transmission must be blocked
>> after
>> + * the scheduled channel switch, this should be set if the target
>> channel
>> + * is DFS channel.
>
>
> Hmmm. This channel switch stuff here was really intended for client-side
> channel switching initially ... and it should quite possibly be a different
> mechanism?
>
The mechanism is different from the client-side channel switch, but
the "ieee80211_channel_switch" struct is almost the same (new
post_switch_block_tx). Do you prefer to create a new
"ieee80211_ap_channel_switch" struct + new driver callback ? something
like drv_ap_channel_switch ?
>> +static int ieee80211_ap_process_chanswitch(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> + struct net_device *dev,
>> + u32 count, bool block_tx,
>> + bool post_switch_block_tx,
>> + u32 new_freq)
>> +{
>> + struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata =
>> IEEE80211_DEV_TO_SUB_IF(dev);
>> + struct ieee80211_local *local = sdata->local;
>> + struct ieee80211_channel *new_ch;
>> + struct ieee80211_channel_switch ch_switch;
>> +
>> + new_ch = ieee80211_get_channel(sdata->local->hw.wiphy, new_freq);
>> + if (!new_ch || new_ch->flags& IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED) {
>>
>> + wiphy_debug(local->hw.wiphy,
>> + "failed channel switch on freq: %d\n",
>> new_freq);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>
>
> That code should obviously be in cfg80211.
>
Why ? and where exactly ?
>
>> @@ -2793,4 +2826,5 @@ struct cfg80211_ops mac80211_config_ops = {
>> .set_noack_map = ieee80211_set_noack_map,
>> .dfs_start_radar_detection = ieee80211_dfs_start_radar_detection,
>> .dfs_en_tx = ieee80211_dfs_en_tx,
>> + .ap_channel_switch = ieee80211_ap_process_chanswitch,
>
>
> why deviate from the ieee80211_ + callback_name scheme?
>
Wanted to be aligned with ieee80211_sta_process_chanswitch(), will rename it.
--
Thanks,
Victor.
--
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
