On 07/20/2012 12:11 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:08:44 +0300
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2012 08:48 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:13:12 +0300
>>> Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> + /* only check 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, skip the rest */
>>>> + for (band = 0; band <= IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ; band++) {
>>>
>>> There is something inelegant here. The code is mixing an integer
>>> and an enum. I'd rather go with one or those:
>>>
>>> two enums:
>>> for (band = IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ; band <= IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ;
>>> band++) {
>>
>> I somewhat see your point. But IMHO zero is commonly used when
>> iterating over an enum to denote the first value and I don't see how
>> IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ helps here.
>
> It's the lowest band we support. What if the 900MHz band is added one
> day?
Then that should be added to the end of the enum, not beginning. I think
it would be bad if we change enum values on the fly.
Kalle
--
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
