On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 23:32 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> 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?
Sure, let's add it to the TOneverbeDOne list. :P
> 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.
Yeah, but it has always been like that. I think the idea is probably
the same: to avoid duplicate arrays. But if cfg80211 modifies it, it
should be able to reset it back to the original as well. Or the driver
must alloc a new one each time.
I wonder what the other drivers do...
--
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
