On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 15:11 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Goldenshtein, Victor <victorg@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Johannes Berg
> > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2012 4:38 AM, Victor Goldenshtein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +static int nl80211_put_feature_flags(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> >>> + struct sk_buff *msg)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (wiphy->flags& WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_DFS)
> >>>
> >>> + wiphy->features |= NL80211_FEATURE_DFS;
> >>> +
> >>> +
> >>> + NLA_PUT_U32(msg, NL80211_ATTR_FEATURE_FLAGS, wiphy->features);
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +nla_put_failure:
> >>> + return -ENOBUFS;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you misunderstood the new feature flags -- they're supposed to be
> >> set by the driver directly, not indirectly via wiphy->flags.
> >>
> >
> > yep, I guess you're right.
>
> While a it, consider adding one for the requirement of sending the
> channel switch announcement within mac80211, not the driver. In that
> case, although a DFS feature may be available in the driver, DFS
> should not be enabled on the driver through nl80211 unless that
> feature gets implemented in mac80211.
That, however, should be feature flag in mac80211, not cfg80211 (wiphy),
and in fact I think it can probably be done by checking if the low-level
function is there instead.
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
