On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 18:07 +0200, Goldenshtein, Victor wrote:
> 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"?
When the driver doesn't explicitly implement channel switch for this and
other things, mac80211 could (should?) manage it.
> 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 ?
I think that would be cleaner in terms of API, since not all drivers
will support both.
> >> +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 ?
Why? because all drivers will need to make this check. Wherever cfg80211
calls into this, of course, and then you'd cal in with a channel pointer
rather than the new freq.
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
