Very brief review:
> +/* */
That seems slightly odd.
> + /* bus private data */
> + char bus_priv[0];
You might want to - for future proofing - add some aligned() attribute.
Otherwise, if struct mutex doesn't have a size that's a multiple of the
pointer size, fields in here will not be aligned right.
> +static inline void *get_bus_priv(struct qtnf_bus *bus)
> +{
> + if (WARN_ON(!bus)) {
> + pr_err("qtnfmac: invalid bus pointer!\n");
> + return NULL;
Better to just use "WARN(!bus, "qtnfmac: invalid bus pointer!\n");"
Also, for pr_* the "qtnfmac: " prefix should be done with pr_fmt, not
manually.
> +#define QLINK_HT_MCS_MASK_LEN 10
> +#define QLINK_ETH_ALEN 6
> +#define QLINK_MAX_SSID_LEN 32
These seem a bit strange? Why bother? They are standard values.
(not entirely sure what the MCS_MASK_LEN is used for though)
> +/*
> + * struct qlink_ht_mcs_info - MCS information
> + *
> + * See &struct ieee80211_mcs_info.
> + */
> +struct qlink_ht_mcs_info {
> + u8 rx_mask[QLINK_HT_MCS_MASK_LEN];
> + __le16 rx_highest;
> + u8 tx_params;
> + u8 reserved[3];
> +} __packed;
> +
> +/*
> + * struct qlink_ht_cap - HT capabilities
> + *
> + * "HT capabilities element", see &struct ieee80211_ht_cap.
> + */
> +struct qlink_ht_cap {
> + struct qlink_ht_mcs_info mcs;
> + __le32 tx_BF_cap_info;
> + __le16 cap_info;
> + __le16 extended_ht_cap_info;
> + u8 ampdu_params_info;
> + u8 antenna_selection_info;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +/*
> + * struct qlink_vht_mcs_info - VHT MCS information
> + *
> + * See &struct ieee80211_vht_mcs_info.
> + */
> +struct qlink_vht_mcs_info {
> + __le16 rx_mcs_map;
> + __le16 rx_highest;
> + __le16 tx_mcs_map;
> + __le16 tx_highest;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +/*
> + * struct qlink_vht_cap - VHT capabilities
> + *
> + * "VHT capabilities element", see &struct ieee80211_vht_cap.
> + */
> +struct qlink_vht_cap {
> + __le32 vht_cap_info;
> + struct qlink_vht_mcs_info supp_mcs;
> +} __packed;
I think you shouldn't duplicate these, there's no sane way they can
ever be changed in ieee80211.h
> +enum qlink_iface_type {
> + QLINK_IFTYPE_AP = BIT(0),
> + QLINK_IFTYPE_STATION = BIT(1),
> + QLINK_IFTYPE_ADHOC = BIT(2),
> + QLINK_IFTYPE_MONITOR = BIT(3),
> + QLINK_IFTYPE_WDS = BIT(4),
> +};
Not sure how you use these, but BIT() doesn't make a lot of sense for
something that's mutually exclusive?
> +/**
> + * Copyright (c) 2015-2016 Quantenna Communications, Inc.
> + * All rights reserved.
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> + * of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + **/
You should probably not have those double asterisks since they're
reserved for kernel-doc.
> + if (qtnf_cmd_send_start_ap(vif)) {
> + pr_err("failed to issue start AP command\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + if (!(vif->bss_status & QTNF_STATE_AP_START)) {
> + pr_err("failed to start AP operations in FW\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
This is strange - I'd expect send_start_ap() to not actually just send
it, but also wait for a response, and then it can return an error if
the flag didn't get set. If it doesn't, then it's racy, no?
> +static int
> +qtnf_connect(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev,
> + struct cfg80211_connect_params *sme)
> +{
> + struct qtnf_vif *vif;
> + struct qtnf_bss_config *bss_cfg;
> +
> + vif = qtnf_netdev_get_priv(dev);
> + if (!vif) {
> + pr_err("core_attach: could not get valid vif
> pointer\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
It seems that you're overdoing the error checks a bit - I don't see how
this could possibly fail?
> + memcpy(&bss_cfg->crypto, &sme->crypto, sizeof(bss_cfg-
> >crypto));
This makes no sense at all - you have to convert the format of this
somehow to make it work - at least endianness has to be fixed, even if
you copied all of the cfg80211 struct.
[snip - lots of stuff I didn't really look at]
> +/* sysfs knobs: stats and other diagnistics */
I think you should not have these - maybe add those with separate
patches later that really can't be done otherwise, and then give very
good rationale for it. Having driver-specific sysfs is not a good idea
in general.
> +static inline u64 qtnf_get_unaligned_le64(const __le64 *ptr)
> +{
> + return le64_to_cpu(get_unaligned(ptr));
> +}
> +
> +static inline u32 qtnf_get_unaligned_le32(const __le32 *ptr)
> +{
> + return le32_to_cpu(get_unaligned(ptr));
> +}
> +
> +static inline u16 qtnf_get_unaligned_le16(const __le16 *ptr)
> +{
> + return le16_to_cpu(get_unaligned(ptr));
> +}
Huh, what? These exist, or should exist, already.
[snip more]
johannes
--
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
