On 11/20/2012 03:09 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 09:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:57 +0530, Mahesh Palivela wrote:
+ for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
+ freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
+ freq += 20) {
+ c = ieee80211_get_channel(wiphy, freq);
+ if (!c || c->flags & (IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR))
+ return false;
+ for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
+ freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
+ freq += 20) {
+ c = ieee80211_get_channel(&rdev->wiphy, freq);
+ if (!c || c->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
+ return -EINVAL;
For loops in both functions seems to be similar. One return false, other
return -EINVAL. Can we remove duplication?
True, but they check different flags. I suppose we could have a common
function where the checked flags are passed in, I can try that.
I'll add this to the patch:
http://p.sipsolutions.net/24eb25fb98ef2d0b.txt
Looks good to me Johannes. Overall your VHT channel config
implementation done so well.
Partial regulatory check in nl80211_parse_chandef() has to be modified
to include BW check. I see your TODO comment there.
Thanks,
Mahesh
--
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
