On 09/24/2014 12:51 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 02:26, <gree...@candelatech.com> wrote: [...]+static struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap ath10k_create_vht_cap(struct ath10k *ar, + bool use_cfg_chains) { struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = {0}; u16 mcs_map; int i; + int nrf = ar->num_rf_chains; + + if (use_cfg_chains && ar->cfg_tx_chainmask) + nrf = get_nss_from_chainmask(ar->cfg_tx_chainmask);Is use_cfg_chains really necessary here? Is setting tx/rx chainmask to 0x0 make any sense at all? Shouldn't we deny it or make it fallback to the supported tx/rx chainmask values?
I was thinking we should register with supported values, instead of configured values. That is the intention of the code. In case we ever re-register after user has configured the system, this should retain that functionality. If it is impossible to re-register the wiphy, then this extra use_cfg_chains logic could go away. On startup, before user ever configures anything (and most users never will), the cfg-tx-chainmask is 0, so it would stay with chip's defaults. Thanks, Ben
Michał -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
