On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:18 -0700, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 09:53:20PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > On 06/07/2012 09:38 PM, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: > > >>> + WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_RSSI_SCAN = BIT(22), > > >>> > > }; > > >> > > > >> > Is this flag really needed? For me this looks like an optimisation more > > >> > than a functional change. If the driver supports this, that's great and > > >> > we can save some power. But if the driver does not support it does it > > >> > really make any difference for the user space? Would user space act > > >> > differently if this feature is not supported by the driver? > > > > > > Well, this allows cfg80211 to return an error if this feature is > > > requested but not supported by the driver / fw. > > > > But do we want to return an error when the driver doesn't support this? > > I was thinking that driver should just ignore the attribute in that case > > and let user space filter the results. > > > > Kalle > > Sure, we can just let userspace unconditionally filter the results when > we do something like: > > iw wlan0 scan rssi -40 > > Johannes, does this look OK to you? I don't see a need to filter in iw, but I agree with Kalle that we shouldn't impose any restrictions on a performance optimisation. 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
