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 1V5EzB-000208-KH for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1375448470.18144.10.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] nl/cfg80211: add chan_time for scan request From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:01:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20130802_135231_798451_6ACEA72F) References: <1375087158-22077-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375342845.8608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1375442751.18144.7.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130802_135231_798451_6ACEA72F) 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 > > That's what I'm worried about - the implicit semantic change here. > > I think I understand your point now. > > I'm thinking of using series of passive scans for ACS now, so perhaps > the whole chan_time stuff is unnecessary. What are your thoughts about > it? Well, still then you're relying on the fact that passive channels scans will stick to each channel for ~110ms or so. This is true today, but it's not really specified. I don't think that using the scan command would be a big deal, but maybe this 'measurement' behaviour should be explicitly enabled? Maybe other devices even have to do something special to collect the data. johannes _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k