Hi Alexander,
alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:37:23 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:55 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Given the new information that I am currently processing, I believe the
> > array is not needed anymore, we can live with a minimal number of
> > additional helpers, like the one getting the PRF value for the UWB
> > PHYs. It's the only one I have in mind so far.
>
> I am not really sure if I understood now. So far those channel/page
> combinations are the same because we have no special "type" value in
> wpan_phy,
Yes, my assumption was more: I know there are only -legacy- phy types
supported, we will add another (or improve the current) way of defining
channels when we'll need to. Eg when improving UWB support.
> what we currently support is the "normal" (I think they name
> it legacy devices) phy type (no UWB, sun phy, whatever) and as Channel
> Assignments says that it does not apply for those PHY's I think it
> there are channel/page combinations which are different according to
> the PHY "type". However we don't support them and I think there might
> be an upcoming type field in wpan_phy which might be set only once at
> registration time.
An idea might be to create a callback that drivers might decide to
implement or not. If they implement it, the core might call it to get
further information about the channels. The core would provide a {page,
channel} couple and retrieve a structure with many information such as
the the frequency, the protocol, eventually the prf, etc.
Thanks,
Miquèl
