On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 09:48 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 09:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> I've skipped the other comments as I can address those in a new series. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > So I'm not really convinced about this. It seems this Kconfig should > >> > better be a Kconfig that enables other Kconfig only, not enabling other > >> > features. How else would anyone be able to do due diligence and check > >> > what exactly this enables that they need to test? > >> > >> Makes sense, so would we then have CONFIG_REG_HINT_CELL_BASE_STATION ? > > > > I don't know how fine-grained it should be? Maybe it should be more > > generic and be a config for all (future) kinds of user hints? > > Well so in this case the cell base station hint support gets used and > trusted on the wireless core if CONFIG_REG_HINT_CELL_BASE_STATION is > set. Whether or not a *driver* trusts and uses it as well will depend > on whether or not they set the NL80211_FEATURE_CELL_BASE_REG_HINTS > feature on their wiphy->features. The way I was thinking about drivers > going about enabling / disabling was to let the driver have its own > kconfig option for this. The reason is that firmware may require some > implementation / changes / testing to ensure that a device won't poop > out if this is used. Oh, that explains the extra flag there, I pretty much thought it was useless. I guess that could be useful for when you ship some device with builtin wireless but allow plugging in other wireless? 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
