On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Arik Nemtsov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Arik Nemtsov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev >>>> *wdev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct ieee80211_channel *ch; >>>> + struct cfg80211_chan_def chandef; >>>> + struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = wiphy_to_rdev(wiphy); >>>> + bool ret = true; >>>> + >>>> + wdev_lock(wdev); >>>> + >>>> + if (!wdev->netdev || !netif_running(wdev->netdev)) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + switch (wdev->iftype) { >>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP: >>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_GO: >>>> + if (!wdev->beacon_interval) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + ret = cfg80211_reg_can_beacon(wiphy, >>>> + &wdev->chandef, >>>> wdev->iftype); >>>> + break; >>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION: >>>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT: >>>> + if (!wdev->current_bss || >>>> + !wdev->current_bss->pub.channel) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + ch = wdev->current_bss->pub.channel; >>>> + if (rdev->ops->get_channel && >>>> + !rdev_get_channel(rdev, wdev, &chandef)) >>>> + ret = cfg80211_chandef_usable(wiphy, &chandef, >>>> + >>>> IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED); >>>> + else >>>> + ret = !(ch->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED); >>>> + break; >>>> + default: >>>> + /* others not implemented for now */ >>> >>> Looks good to me except this of course, since its a flag that will >>> enable this per wiphy might as well WARN() if you really do not want >>> to think about this. That means that once someone does enable this on >>> a wiphy with the other type of interfaces they'll have to think about >>> this, likewise one could warn if a wiphy interface is registered with >>> the flag to follow this but supports a mode not handled here yet. >> >> But I do want to support a wiphy that has other modes >> (NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC), but I don't want people to get warnings every >> time they use IBSS. >> Maybe I'll rename the flag to REGULATORY_ENFORCE_AP_STA_CHANNELS? > > Then it depends on how important this feature is for your regulatory > requirements. If its important then I'd wait until its properly > implemented, if its not required for the other modes then a simple > information message would suffice.
Let's settle for the pr_info then. Arik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
