[removed lkml]
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:24:02 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> [...]
> --- linux-2.6.15-ds060105.orig/include/net/ieee80211.h 2006-01-08
> 02:10:46.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.15-ds060105/include/net/ieee80211.h 2006-01-09
> 16:22:59.000000000 +0100
> [...]
> +struct ieee80211_device {
> + /* Device name string. Usually "wlanX". */
> + __u8 name[IFNAMSIZ + 1];
> + /* Hardware data. */
> + struct ieee80211_hw *hw;
> + /* Wireless Configuration data. */
> + struct wconf_device *wconf;
> + struct net_device *dev;/*TODO: We want to get rid of the master
> net_device
> + and use ieee80211_device instead. */
> +};
This ieee80211_device structure is redundant, wconf_device etc. should
be in ieee80211_hw.
> --- linux-2.6.15-ds060105.orig/include/net/wconf.h 1970-01-01
> 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.15-ds060105/include/net/wconf.h 2006-01-11 21:53:55.000000000
> +0100
> [...]
> +enum {
> + WCONF_CMD_NAME,
> + WCONF_CMD_NICK,
What is WCONF_CMD_NICK for?
> + WCONF_CMD_MODE,
> + WCONF_CMD_CHANNEL,
> + WCONF_CMD_SENSITIVITY,
> + //TODO
> + WCONF_NR_STANDARD, /* Number of standard commands. */
> + WCONF_CMD_FIRSTPRIV = 0x0001FFFF,
> + WCONF_CMD_LASTPRIV = 0xFFFFFFFF,
> +};
Do we really need private commands?
> +enum {
> + WCONF_MODE_AUTO, /* Let the driver decides */
AUTO mode has no sense.
> + WCONF_MODE_ADHOC, /* Single cell network */
> + WCONF_MODE_INFRA, /* Multi cell network, roaming, ... */
> + WCONF_MODE_MASTER, /* Synchronisation master or Access Point */
> + WCONF_MODE_REPEAT, /* Wireless Repeater (forwarder) */
> + WCONF_MODE_SECOND, /* Secondary master/repeater (backup) */
> + WCONF_MODE_MONITOR, /* Passive monitor (listen only) */
> +};
When we are creating a new API, couldn't we use names conforming to the
standard? I. e. AP instead of MASTER, WDS instead of REPEATER, etc.?
> +struct wconf_cmd_channel {
> + /** Frequency in KHz, or channel number if < 1000 */
> + __u32 freq;
> + __u8 flags;
> +#define WCONF_CHAN_AUTO (1 << 0)
> +#define WCONF_CHAN_FIXED (1 << 1)
> +};
Do we really want frequency to be set from userspace?
> +/*** KERNEL API (Driver and internal) ***/
> +
> +/*TODO: Handler functions are currently not implemented. They must be hooked
> up by the
> + * ieee80211 subsystem (and must be implemented as part of the
> ieee80211 subsys).
> + * Where applicable, the drivers must re-hook the handler functions
> (for hardware
> + * MAC for example).
> + */
I'm not sure here. When drivers are allowed to rehook handlers, there is
a possibility that handlers in different drivers won't behave in the
same way regarding to userspace. Maybe all calls should go through the
ieee80211 and there should be callbacks in ieee80211_hw designed for
cards with advanced firmware?
Also, I wasn't able to find out (perhaps I just didn't look carefully
enough) how you addressed the problem of commands that affect all of
interfaces vs. commands that affect just one interface.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
