On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 08:44 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
>> From: Victor Goldenshtein <victorg@xxxxxx>
>>
>> wlcore allocates two static structs wl1271_band_2ghz & wl1271_band_5ghz
>> which are used/modified by Reg-Domain e.g. some channel might be marked
>> as passive at some point. Make sure we don't keep stale settings around
>> if the HW is unregistered/registered during operation.
>>
>> [Arik - use Tx-power constant and tweak commit message]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Victor Goldenshtein <victorg@xxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>> index e68cd3f..3ced59b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -5537,6 +5537,7 @@ wlcore_iface_combinations[] = {
>>
>> static int wl1271_init_ieee80211(struct wl1271 *wl)
>> {
>> + int i;
>> static const u32 cipher_suites[] = {
>> WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_WEP40,
>> WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_WEP104,
>> @@ -5599,6 +5600,22 @@ static int wl1271_init_ieee80211(struct wl1271 *wl)
>> ARRAY_SIZE(wl1271_channels_5ghz) >
>> WL1271_MAX_CHANNELS);
>> /*
>> + * clear channel flags from the previous usage
>> + * and restore max_power & max_antenna_gain values.
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wl1271_channels); i++) {
>> + wl1271_band_2ghz.channels[i].flags = 0;
>> + wl1271_band_2ghz.channels[i].max_power = WLCORE_MAX_TXPWR;
>> + wl1271_band_2ghz.channels[i].max_antenna_gain = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wl1271_channels_5ghz); i++) {
>> + wl1271_band_5ghz.channels[i].flags = 0;
>> + wl1271_band_5ghz.channels[i].max_power = WLCORE_MAX_TXPWR;
>> + wl1271_band_5ghz.channels[i].max_antenna_gain = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>
> This looks a bit hacky, because you must know what values are being
> modified by cfg80211. What if in the future there are more values in
> the channel structure that are being modified?
>
> The best would be to have a copy of the struct to pass to cfg80211 when
> the hardware is registered and realloc it when we unregister. That
> would be safer and more future-proof, but would use a bit more memory
> though.
Yea a new struct wasn't used because of the memory requirement. I
agree a copy is cleaner.
Let's start with this one to solve the actual bug and make a TODO for later?
I'm also not sure that having cfg80211 change a structure allocated
and owned by the driver is the cleanest solution for the regulatory
stuff.
--
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
