Hi Alex, aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:24:48 -0400: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 3:35 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is a limitation clearly listed in the specification. Now that we > > have device types,let's ensure that only FFDs can become PAN > > coordinators. > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > net/ieee802154/nl802154.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c b/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c > > index 638bf544f102..0c6fc3385320 100644 > > --- a/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c > > +++ b/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c > > @@ -924,6 +924,9 @@ static int nl802154_new_interface(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > + if (type == NL802154_IFTYPE_COORD && !cfg802154_is_ffd(rdev)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > Look at my other mail regarding why the user needs to set this device > capability, change the errno to "EOPNOTSUPP"... it would be nice to > have an identically nl80211 handling like nl80211 to see which > interfaces are supported. Please look how wireless is doing that and > probably we should not take the standard about those "wording" too > seriously. What I mean is that according to FFD or RFD it's implied on > what interfaces you can create on. This is true, I don't need this _is_ffd() helper, checking on the type of interface should be enough. I will drop the DEV(PHY)_TYPE enum entirely. Thanks, Miquèl
