On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 17:33 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 08:45 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> >> Obtain the last Tx rate from the FW status and translate it to
> >> the mac80211 rate+flag format before sending it up via the Tx status.
> >>
> >> Bump up the min FW version to the first FW that supports the rate byte.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> +static
> >> +void wl18xx_get_last_tx_rate(struct wl1271 *wl, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
> >> + u8 *tx_rate, u8 *tx_rate_flags)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * first pass info->control.vif while it's valid, and then fill out
> >> + * the info->status structures
> >> + */
> >> + wl18xx_get_last_tx_rate(wl, info->control.vif,
> >> + &info->status.rates[0].idx,
> >> + &info->status.rates[0].flags);
> >
> > This doesn't work anymore, because commit 8bc83c24 (mac80211: support
> > VHT rates in TX info) changed the struct like this:
> >
> > @@ -560,10 +568,32 @@ enum mac80211_rate_control_flags {
> > */
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate {
> > s8 idx;
> > - u8 count;
> > - u8 flags;
> > + u16 count:5,
> > + flags:11;
> > } __packed;
> >
> > So you can't get the address of flags anymore.
> >
> > Do you mind respinning it?
>
> Technically you should do it, since your master branch was pointing to
> an older revision at the time. But I'm feeling generous.
Well, yes I should do it, kind of.
> I'll also rebase the part 3 series on top of the latest code to fix
> any breakage. So I'll at least re-spin the patches containing
> ieee80211_iterate_active_interfaces() (as the prototype was changed)
Thanks! :)
--
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
