From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49] helo=sipsolutions.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cjMSK-0007RL-D0 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:51:26 +0000 Message-ID: <1488444659.8390.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] cfg80211: Add Support set btcoex priority value From: Johannes Berg Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:50:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488029873-14600-4-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <1488029873-14600-1-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> <1488029873-14600-4-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org SXMgdGhlcmUgbXVjaCBwb2ludCBpbiBoYXZpbmcgNCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBqdXN0IDIgcGF0Y2hl cz8KCgo+ICsJaW50wqDCoMKgwqDCoCgqc2V0X2J0Y29leCkoc3RydWN0IHdpcGh5ICp3aXBoeSwg Ym9vbCBlbmFibGVkLAo+ICsJCQnCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqBpbnQgYnRjb2V4X3ByaW9yaXR5KTsKClNo b3VsZG4ndCB0aGF0IGJlIHUzMiBhcyBhIGJpdG1hcD8KCj4gKwlib29sIGJ0Y29leF9wcmlvcml0 eV9zdXBwb3J0OwoKV2h5IG5vdCB1c2UgYW4gZXh0ZW5kZWQgbmw4MDIxMSBmZWF0dXJlIGZsYWcg ZGlyZWN0bHk/Cgo+ICsgKiBATkw4MDIxMV9BVFRSX0JUQ09FWF9QUklPUklUWTogVGhpcyBpcyBm b3IgdGhlIGRyaXZlciB3aGljaAo+ICsgKsKgwqDCoMKgwqBzdXBwb3J0IGJ0Y29leCBwcmlvcml0 eSBmZWF0dXJlLiBJdCB1c2VkIHdpdGgKPiAlTkw4MDIxMV9DTURfU0VUX0JUQ09FWC4KPiArICrC oMKgwqDCoMKgVGhpcyB3aWxsIGhhdmUgdTMyIEJJVE1BUCB2YWx1ZSB3aGljaCByZXByZXNlbnRz Cj4gKyAqwqDCoMKgwqDCoGZyYW1lKGJrLCBiZSwgdmksIHZvLCBtZ210LCBiZWFjb24pIHR5cGUg YW5kIHRoYXQgd2lsbCBoYXZlCj4gbW9yZQo+ICsgKsKgwqDCoMKgwqBwcmlvcml0eSB0aGFuIGEg QlQgdHJhZmZpYy4KCkkgdGhpbmsgeW91IG5lZWQgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBiaXRzIHNvbWV3aGVy ZSBpbiBhbiBlbnVtIC0gaS5lLiB3aGljaApvbmUgaXMgVk8sIFZJLCAuLi4KCj4gKwlpbnQgYnRj b2V4X3ByaW9yaXR5ID0gLTE7CgpUaGF0IC0xIGlzIHByZXR0eSB1c2VsZXNzLCBpZiB0aGUgZHJp dmVyIGRvZXNuJ3Qgc3VwcG9ydCBpdCwgaG9wZWZ1bGx5Cml0IHdvbid0IGxvb2sgYXQgdGhlIHZh bHVlIGF0IGFsbD8KCmpvaGFubmVzCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXwphdGgxMGsgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0CmF0aDEwa0BsaXN0cy5pbmZyYWRlYWQu b3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5pbmZyYWRlYWQub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vYXRoMTBrCg== From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:47648 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753587AbdCBIvk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 03:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: <1488444659.8390.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20170302_102241_224084_D4294080) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] cfg80211: Add Support set btcoex priority value From: Johannes Berg To: c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:50:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488029873-14600-4-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <1488029873-14600-1-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> <1488029873-14600-4-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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