On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 23:35 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > + IEEE80211_HW_HAS_RATE_CONTROL,
> > + IEEE80211_HW_RX_INCLUDES_FCS,
>
> It may be nicer to use specified bit numbers here.
>
> It may make compatibility easier and maybe it should be
> written down that new entries are only to be added at
> the bottom of the enum and not inserted in the middle.
There's no reason for that, since it's pure kernel internal API any
renumbering of these bits is perfectly fine.
> This is similar to the broadcom tg3 driver, but a little different.
>
> The mechanism in tg3 compared to ieee80211_hw is
> tg3_flag ieee80211_hw_check
> tg3_flag_set ieee80211_hw_set
> tg3_flag_clear ?
>
> Would a ieee80211_hw_clear be useful?
See my reply to Julian.
> Would it be clearer without the _check?
Well, I thought it would read as
ieee80211_hw "check has_rate_control"
with this in a sense, for example.
> > static ssize_t hwflags_read(struct file *file, char __user *user_buf,
> > size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> []
> > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_IEEE80211_HW_FLAGS; i++) {
> > + if (test_bit(i, local->hw.flags))
>
> Maybe use the ieee80211_hw_check() function?
Obviously that won't work. :) I could use the _ieee80211 one, but I'm
considering just getting rid of that one and inlining the test_bit into
the macro instead.
johannes
--
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
