On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 17:52 +0300, Paulius Zaleckas wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 15:03 +0300, Paulius Zaleckas wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Currently WiMAX op_nap_scan supports scanning for NAP only
> >> by NAP channel info. Fujitsu devices also supports scanning
> >> by Mobile WiMAX RF profiles and also can scan whole supported
> >> frequency ranges. Actually later version of Fujitsu chip does
> >> not support scanning by a single frequency!
> > 
> > Since the stack was developed against a single implementation (nobody
> > else was developing Linux drivers or stuff at the time) the current
> > stack reflects the best guesses of the Intel guys about what other
> > hardware can do.  So it's not surprising that stuff would need to be
> > extended later.  Scanning was specifically part of the API that was
> > *under* specified because nobody was quite sure what other chips could
> > do.
> > 
> >> It is not a problem for me to add something like op_nap_scan_all
> >> and op_nap_scan_rf_profiles. However there are some open questions:
> > 
> > I was pretty sure the Intel parts could do a "wide" scan, scanning all
> > frequencies they supported too.  Or something like that.
> > 
> >> 1. IMO it would be better/cleaner to not define functions just
> >>    returning -EOPNOTSUPP in driver. WiMAX core could just check if
> >>    function is not defined and return -EOPNOTSUPP ?
> >>    This should also make it easier to add more functions later,
> >>    since you won't have to update all drivers.
> >>
> >> 2. Connection manager needs to know which scanning methods are
> >>    supported (instead of calling each and checking if it returns
> >>    -EOPNOTSUPP). Should we extend capability flags?
> > 
> > Yes.  Connection managers need some way of figuring out what
> > capabilities hardware supports so they can make intelligent decisions
> > about what to do.  Lets be careful about adding too many scan methods
> > though...
> > 
> > For example, if you can scan an RF profile, how is the connection
> > manager supposed to figure out *which* RF profiles the card supports, so
> > that it can tell the card to scan a particular RF profile based on what
> > country the user is in, for example?  In the end that's basically
> > frequency ranges anyway.
> > 
> > So maybe just allowing scans based on frequency ranges would be easier?
> > The connection manager is easier to update, and more frequently updated,
> > and thus it might make sense to put the logic of RF profiles in the
> > connection manager (or the wimax network service) and have it translate
> > profile -> frequency range, instead of encoding the logic about RF
> > profiles in the user <-> kernel ABI.
> 
> In Fujitsu case, the older chipset was capable to scan specific
> frequencies, but new one can do only "wide" scan or scan by RF profiles.
> So it looks like we will have to do scan by profiles.

BTW, maybe I missed it, but are the Fujitsu drivers open-source, or
might they become open-source at some point?

Dan

> > Not sure, thoughts?  Experience has shown that stuff like RF profiles
> > and frequency ranges tend to grow over time, become re-specified and
> > changed pretty frequently, and get quite complicated 3 years down the
> > road.  Even with licensed spectrum.
> > 
> >> 3. I guess we will need to implement netlink interface for
> >>    connection manager to get supported frequencies, FFT sizes,
> >>    bandwidths, RF profiles and etc. Do you agree?
> > 
> > Yes.  If the connection manager can't figure out the capabilities of the
> > device, it can't make intelligent decisions about the device, and it
> > can't make things easier for the user.  I for one really want to be able
> > to get supported frequencies out of the device.  If I'm a connection
> > manager, and I know the user is in Europe, I don't want to even try
> > scanning on 2.6 GHz.  But unless the card exposes what frequencies it
> > supports, I either have to (a) hardcode VID/PID/driver <-> frequency
> > ranges, or (b) risk regulatory problems/take a long time to scan.
> > 
> > Dan

_______________________________________________
wimax mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxwimax.org/listinfo/wimax

Reply via email to