On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 16:22 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 14:05 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote:
> >> The scan APIs of 12xx and 18xx are totally different.
> >> Use some common functions as much as possible (e.g.
> >> for setting scan channels), but split scan.c into
> >> chip-specific scan.c files, each implementing its
> >> own scan mechanism.
> >>
> >> (in other words - move most of the current wlcore's
> >> scan.c into wl12xx, and implement a similar mechanism
> >> in 18xx, according to the new api)
> >>
> >> New wlcore ops are introduced in order to call the
> >> chip-specific scan functions.
> >>
> >> The template indices used for each scan (regular/scheduled)
> >> are also different between the chips, so set the correct
> >> indices used for each scan type after identifying the chip.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> +/* probe request rate */
> >> +enum
> >> +{
> >> + WLCORE_SCAN_RATE_1 = 0,
> >> + WLCORE_SCAN_RATE_5_5 = 1,
> >> + WLCORE_SCAN_RATE_6 = 2,
> >> +};
> >
> > WL18XX_SCAN_RATE_* instead?
> >
> right.
>
> >> +
> >> +struct wl1271_cmd_scan_params {
> >
> > wl18xx_cmd_scan_params is better.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> +struct wl12xx_cmd_scan_stop {
> >
> > wl18xx_cmd_scan_stop instead?
> >
> sure (both).
>
> > [...]
> >
> >> @@ -3820,10 +3817,8 @@ static int wlcore_set_bssid(struct wl1271 *wl, struct wl12xx_vif *wlvif,
> >> wlvif->band);
> >>
> >> /* we only support sched_scan while not connected */
> >> - if (wl->sched_scanning) {
> >> - wl1271_scan_sched_scan_stop(wl, wlvif);
> >> - ieee80211_sched_scan_stopped(wl->hw);
> >> - }
> >> + if (wl->sched_scanning)
> >> + wl->ops->sched_scan_stop(wl, wlvif);
> >
> > What happened with the ieee80211_sched_scan_stopped()?
> >
> it was a bug - we call it when we get the SCAN_SCHED_COMPLETED event.
> i fixed it while changing the api, but i guess a better place to do it
> would be in patch [1/12], where i moved it from another place :)
LOL!
> or maybe it even deserves a separate patch?
I think it deserves a separate patch that can be easily cherry-picked to
other trees (and maybe even CC'ed stable?).
--
Luca.
--
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
