Hi Marcel,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 06:57:15PM -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Mohamed,
>
> > include/device.h | 9 ++++++++-
> > plugins/iwmx.c | 3 ++-
> > plugins/wifi.c | 5 +++--
> > src/device.c | 6 +++---
> > 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/device.h b/include/device.h
> > index a82d08d..1b54288 100644
> > --- a/include/device.h
> > +++ b/include/device.h
> > @@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ enum connman_device_type {
> > CONNMAN_DEVICE_TYPE_VENDOR = 10000,
> > };
> >
> > +enum connman_device_scan_type {
> > + CONNMAN_DEVICE_SCAN_TYPE_NORMAL = 0,
> > + CONNMAN_DEVICE_SCAN_TYPE_FAST = 1,
> > + CONNMAN_DEVICE_SCAN_TYPE_HIDDEN = 2,
> > +};
> > +
>
> since HIDDEN is not yet used, we might wanna leave that out for now. Or
> what is your plan here?
>
> Another option instead of using scan(<type>) would be to implement a
> fast_scan() callback. And only if the device type supports it, it will
> be called. That allows the device driver a bit of flexibility. And the
> core can nicely do a fallback.
>
> Samuel, any preference?
The idea was to check if the driver can send several SSIDs (or even one) probe
requests at once. If it does, we start doing a fast scan. Depending on the
fast scan results, we may have to go through the regular scan code path. That
is to say, if the fast scan results don't bring any of our favourite SSIDs
back, then we fall back to a regular scan.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
