From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:62859 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934664AbZLGUZb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:25:31 -0500 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so3877689bwz.21 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:25:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87my1v3sum.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> References: <16a81f890912031225g888490y2e8ff92557a322b7@mail.gmail.com> <1260096442.3461.3.camel@johannes.local> <87my1v3sum.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:25:36 -0800 Message-ID: <16a81f890912071225v2a1e603cy18afdd9b652903a1@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] mac80211: add U-APSD client support From: Jason Young To: Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Johannes Berg writes: > >> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 12:25 -0800, Jason Young wrote: >> >>> The bit values for IEEE80211_WMM_IE_STA_SP_XXX are not correct.  The Max SP >>> Length subfield settings table in 7.3.1.17 has the least significant bit listed >>> first. >>> >>> #define IEEE80211_WMM_IE_STA_SP_ALL  (0<<5) >>> #define IEEE80211_WMM_IE_STA_SP_2     (1<<5)  /* or (BIT(5)) */ >>> #define IEEE80211_WMM_IE_STA_SP_4     (2<<5)  /* or (BIT(6)) */ >>> #define IEEE80211_WMM_IE_STA_SP_6     (3<<5)  /* or (BIT(5) | BIT(6)) */ >> >> Can somebody clarify for me which part of this stuff is WMM, and which >> is "real" 802.11 QoS? Though this patch adds support for WMM Power Save, these defines will work for WMM and "real" 802.11 QoS. > I took a quick peek of the 802.11-2007 QoS part. My observation was > that the terms are the same, but that's about it. For example QoS Info > field is reversed, APSD capability is advertised through beacon > capability bits and naturally there are proper ids for IEs. The QoS info field itself is not reversed, the figure is just reversed. > So they are very similar but the frame handling has to be more or less > rewritten for 802.11 QoS. > > BTW, are there clients which support 802.11 QoS? Should we consider > adding it to mac80211, for example? Thoughts? > -- > Kalle Valo > Jason Young