Re: RFC: unified BSS configuration approach

["Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@gmail.com>]

On Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hm, true, that could happen. Does it happen in practice though? I can't
> > > see why a low level driver would decide that it should have short
> > > preamble or CTS protection on by default. Maybe we should just document
> > > initial state? Or we can keep the initial call and remove that "don't
> > > call w/o BSS" restriction instead, which seems saner. We should then
> > > probably rename reset_erp_info() to reset_bss_info() though.
> >
> > Yes it happens in practices. I think with short slot.
> > reset_bss_info() sounds good.
>
> Ok so let's rename reset_erp_info() to reset_bss_info() and have it
> handle all the other stuff too.
>
> > > > 1 - change the original intention of bss_info_changed so mac80211 will
> > > > be able to set low-level driver in the "init" or "configure" flows as
> > > > well, not only as BSS is formed or changes
> > > > 2 - maintain original intention, use "bss_info_changed" only when we
> > > > want to deliver BSS configuration when we get associate or during
> > > > association state,  and deliver all initial configuration info through
> > > > different ops
> > >
> > > I prefer the first option since that's essentially just a small
> > > documentation change and it makes sense. We just should make sure that
> > > it's called only when the device is started (through ->start()).
> >
> > what about reset_bss_info() ?
>
> Well reset_bss_info() would still call ->bss_info_changed(), no?

Sounds good so far.

> johannes
>