On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:13:27AM -0700, nohee ko wrote:
>> Add debugfs in brcmfmac
>
> Please detail why you are doing this and what it is for in the
> changelog.
...
>> +config BRCMFMAC_DEBUGFS
>> + bool "Enable debugfs in brcmfmac"
>
> Why would someone want this? Where is it going to show up in debugfs?
> What is going to be there when it does?
Greg,
I agree commit message needs more content. I also agree we don't need
another CONFIG Option here.
Here's a suggested commit message that Nohee is welcome to use as a
starting point:
Brcmfmac driver implements MAC layer support in the device - ie does
not use kernel mac80211 driver. ChromiumOS WIFI tests expect DEBUGFS
enabled which provides access to MAC layer dtim_period and
beacon_interval values. Nohee is adding DEBUGFS support to brcmfamc
driver to provide the equivalent DEBUGFS support which exists in
mac80211 driver.
Chromium WIFI tests are available here (See network_wifi* files):
http://git.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=autotest.git;a=tree;f=client/site_tests
Here is an overview of the "HW tests":
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/testing/hardware_qualification
-------- EOM -------
FTR, Sam Leffler/Paul Stewart presented their autotest work at SF WIFI
summit about a month ago. Unfortunately, I can't find any
presentation/notes from that session. In anyone is excited to run
these tests, the corresponding HW test bed description will be
available soon (also Sam/Paul's work primarily).
...
> In short, I think you mixed a few different things in this patch.
>
> Please break it up into logical steps, one perhaps adding some new
> infrastructure that you will then, in a later patch, expose using
> debugfs.
>
> It should be two patches at the very least, possibly three, right?
Here's what I see...please suggest something different if you think
I've missed something:
1) clean up use of active_scan in wl_do_iscan()/__wl_cfg80211_scan
2) add DEBUGFS support equivalent to what mac80211 provides.
I expect DEBUGFS support could be added in three steps:
2a) hooks to make use of local dtim_perioud/beacon_interval values.
2b) export dtim_period via DEBUGFS
2c) export beacon_interval via DEBUGFS
That sound reasonable? Everything make more sense now?
Any guidance that would make step (2) easier?
cheers,
grant
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
