From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:53201 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761357Ab2FVGdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: <1340346809.4491.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120622_083340_685346_B39E5D28) Subject: RE: [RFC v3] cfg80211/mac80211: 802.11ac changes From: Johannes Berg To: Mahesh Palivela Cc: Arend van Spriel , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:33:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <952C5D5D0470AE4FB7D8A75C6ADC71CA0B3D6F@mbx022-e1-nj-10.exch022.domain.local> References: <952C5D5D0470AE4FB7D8A75C6ADC71CA0B3CE8@mbx022-e1-nj-10.exch022.domain.local> <1340302471.4489.43.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4FE36942.1090801@broadcom.com> <1340303967.4489.44.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> ,<4FE36FC1.2020702@broadcom.com> <952C5D5D0470AE4FB7D8A75C6ADC71CA0B3D6F@mbx022-e1-nj-10.exch022.domain.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 03:06 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Arend van Spriel [arend@broadcom.com] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:32 AM > To: Johannes Berg > Cc: Mahesh Palivela; linville@tuxdriver.com; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [RFC v3] cfg80211/mac80211: 802.11ac changes > > On 06/21/2012 08:39 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 20:34 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> On 06/21/2012 08:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 16:51 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote: > >>> > >>>> +/* 802.11ac VHT Capabilities */ > >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_7991 0x00000001 > >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_11454 0x00000002 > >>> > >>> I have a feeling there should be a value for 3895, since this isn't > >>> really a bitfield only (it doesn't make sense to set both of these, in > >>> fact 3 is reserved) > >> > >> These are matching the values specified for the VHP Capability Info IE. > >> 3895 is specified as 0. Value 3 is reserved because it is not to be > >> regarded as a bit field. > > > > Right, but I think it'd make more sense to actually have the 3895 value > > as a constant here so you're not tempted to think that you could set > > [MP] Should I declare another constant for this? > +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_3895 0 Yes I think that would be good johannes