On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:25 -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
> Perhaps that is a split that we do not need? I don't see the problem
> that 'd80211: split ieee80211_hw' is solving. I do see what it is
> doing, but maybe I am missing something . . .
Oh, I just figured that on 64-bit systems the _ops
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 05:57:39PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 08:55 -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
>
> > ok. I am concerned that making this split between per driver and per
> > card is difficult to get right. Setting or not setting a function
> > pointer for an operation is
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 08:55 -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
> ok. I am concerned that making this split between per driver and per
> card is difficult to get right. Setting or not setting a function
> pointer for an operation is fairly standard practice and I don't see
> the value in introducing yet
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 05:34:49PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 07:56 -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
>
> > What is wrong with the driver setting the function pointer to NULL for
> > the cards that do not support scanning? Where does this requirment
> > come from that the functi
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 17:34 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Well I want to allow drivers to make assign the 33 function pointers in
> a static structure, and differences between cards must then be handled
> in the non-static part.
Uh, that didn't come out too well.
The point is that ieee80211_ops
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 17:15 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > - if (local->ops->hw_scan) {
> > + if (local->ops->hw_scan && local->wiphy.flags & IEEE80211_HW_SCAN) {
>
> Please wrap this into ()
Good point :)
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 07:56 -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
> What is wrong with the driver setting the function pointer to NULL for
> the cards that do not support scanning? Where does this requirment
> come from that the function pointers in struct ieee80211_wiphy be
> identical for all cards?
Well
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:21, Johannes Berg wrote:
> If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However,
> if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware
> scanning, it'll need a flag.
>
> Similar issues arise with passive_scan().
>
> This patch int
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 01:21:13AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However,
> if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware
> scanning, it'll need a flag.
What is wrong with the driver setting the function pointe
If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However,
if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware
scanning, it'll need a flag.
Similar issues arise with passive_scan().
This patch introduces flags to fix these issues.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[EM
10 matches
Mail list logo
