On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 03:06 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Arend van Spriel [arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:32 AM > To: Johannes Berg > Cc: Mahesh Palivela; linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC v3] cfg80211/mac80211: 802.11ac changes > > On 06/21/2012 08:39 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 20:34 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> On 06/21/2012 08:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 16:51 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote: > >>> > >>>> +/* 802.11ac VHT Capabilities */ > >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_7991 0x00000001 > >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_11454 0x00000002 > >>> > >>> I have a feeling there should be a value for 3895, since this isn't > >>> really a bitfield only (it doesn't make sense to set both of these, in > >>> fact 3 is reserved) > >> > >> These are matching the values specified for the VHP Capability Info IE. > >> 3895 is specified as 0. Value 3 is reserved because it is not to be > >> regarded as a bit field. > > > > Right, but I think it'd make more sense to actually have the 3895 value > > as a constant here so you're not tempted to think that you could set > > [MP] Should I declare another constant for this? > +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_3895 0 Yes I think that would be good 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
