Is there much point in having 4 rather than just 2 patches?
> + int (*set_btcoex)(struct wiphy *wiphy, bool enabled, > + int btcoex_priority); Shouldn't that be u32 as a bitmap? > + bool btcoex_priority_support; Why not use an extended nl80211 feature flag directly? > + * @NL80211_ATTR_BTCOEX_PRIORITY: This is for the driver which > + * support btcoex priority feature. It used with > %NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX. > + * This will have u32 BITMAP value which represents > + * frame(bk, be, vi, vo, mgmt, beacon) type and that will have > more > + * priority than a BT traffic. I think you need to define the bits somewhere in an enum - i.e. which one is VO, VI, ... > + int btcoex_priority = -1; That -1 is pretty useless, if the driver doesn't support it, hopefully it won't look at the value at all? johannes
