On Friday 31 January 2014 06:06:58 Felix Fietkau wrote:
[...]
> >> I think all of the above changes are unnecessary.
> > 
> > Because of your next suggestion or is there another reason?
> 
> Because it's touching legacy code that will not be used for 802.11ac
> drivers. wifi_fixup_hwmode is not called from netifd based scripts.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

[...]
> > I am not quite sure what you want to say here. You seem to want to have
> > 11n
> > and band separated, ok. Are you now suggestion that the uci should get a
> > new option to say "enable ht/disable ht"? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> > just to keep mode_11n as it was before and make the decision whether
> > ieee80211ac=1 can be enabled on the modified htmode wireless option?
> 
> I think in new configs, the mode should only be 11a or 11g, and
> 802.11n/802.11ac is enabled through the htmode option. 11na and 11ng
> would only be supported for compatibility reasons.

Ok, sounds good. I will avoid to touch it.

> > At the end I would suggest following approach:
> >  * Introduce wireless.@wifi-device[*].vht_capab with a similar function as
> >  
> >    list ht_capab
> 
> I actually want to get rid of ht_capab as well, because it's annoying to
> deal with wrt. UI, config changes, etc.
> It also makes it more annoying to port configs between devices
> (capabilities might be different).
> I would prefer enabling all capabilities by default (aside from the mode
> related ones), and allowing the user to selectively disable them via
> individual bool options.
> Example: option rx_stbc_123 0

Sounds interesting. Do you want to implement it in the next days or should we 
proceed by leaving it in the patch and let you remove it during your 
modifications?

> >  * Allow "VHT40", "VHT80" (default when AC is found), "VHT160" in htmode
> >  * enable ieee80211ac=1 when one of the new htmode's are found
> > 
> > This would mean following user visible changes to the patch:
> >  * no wireless.@wifi-device[*].vhtmode
> >  * no wireless.@wifi-device[*].hwmode='11ac' and instead 11na would be the
> >  
> >    default for AC devices
> 
> Right, in addition to what I mentioned above.

Ok.

Kind regards,
        Sven

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Reply via email to