From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152] helo=sipsolutions.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1V4nVX-0000MM-RS for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:41:12 +0000 Message-ID: <1375342845.8608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] nl/cfg80211: add chan_time for scan request From: Johannes Berg Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:40:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> References: <1375087158-22077-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Michal Kazior Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:39 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > + * @NL80211_ATTR_SCAN_CHAN_TIME: Specifies how many msec should a driver spend > + * on each channel during scanning. This is optional and the default is > + * leave the decision up to the driver. This setting may, but preferrably typo: preferably :) > + * shouldn't, be ignored by driver. This seems a bit iffy - you don't differentiate between active/passive scans? Also maybe there should be a bit saying "I support scan timing" or even the min/max times? This also interferes a bit with some other scan optimisations that could be done at a low firmware level, so I think we should be careful and actually say that this is really more intended for measurement use cases and not for normal scans? Or maybe we should have a separate measurement command with similar semantics? This all doesn't seem very clear to me yet :) johannes _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k