Re: [PATCH 2/4] cfg80211: Add new NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX_PRIORITY to support BTCOEX

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

> > 1) does it even make sense to split it out per AC? wouldn't it be
> > weird
> > if you supported this only for VO and BK, and not the others, or
> > something like that?
> > 
> 
> It has support for BE, VI, management and beacon frames also.
> Or do you meant to say like support only for VO and BK?

I mean - does it make sense for a piece of hardware to support only
VO/BK, without the others? I don't really see how that would make
sense, but maybe I'm missing something?

IOW - why have all these bits rather than just one?

> > 2) Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in nl80211 and just
> > pass the bitmap through to userspace? That would save quite a bit
> > of netlink mangling complexity.
> > 
> 
> Please let me know if the below design/thought is fine to you.
> 
> iw phyX set btcoex_priority <[vi, vo, be, bk, mgmt, beacon]>

That seems fine, but I don't see how the iw command line is relevant to
the question of whether we pass flag attributes or a bitmap??

> By this command user should give one or more than one frame types
> for 
> this btcoex priority,
> we will parse that in "iw" and send as a single bitmap(less than
> 0x64)  to the driver?

Right, and also to nl80211. Why not?

johannes