From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail30t.wh2.ocn.ne.jp ([125.206.180.136]:36555 "HELO mail30t.wh2.ocn.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932346Ab0EKJeS (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2010 05:34:18 -0400 Received: from vs3009.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (125.206.180.237) by mail30t.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 5-04963457 for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 18:34:17 +0900 (JST) From: Bruno Randolf To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mac80211: antenna configuration Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 18:34:36 +0900 References: <20100511083121.28289.96180.stgit@tt-desk> <1273567999.3669.27.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1273567999.3669.27.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, holgerschurig@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <201005111834.36879.br1@einfach.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 11 May 2010 17:53:19 you wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:38 +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > > i have followed holger schurig's suggestion to use a bitmap for allowed > > antennas. when multiple antennas are selected in the bitmap, the driver > > may use diversity. i think that this allows for the most flexible, yet > > simple configuration of antennas, and drivers can just reject > > configurations they cannot support. i hope that this will also be > > generic enough for 802.11n with multiple antennas > > Not sure ... 11n has antennas and chains, but people mix them up > frequently. Does this API even make sense for 11n? Use cases? Should it > be about *antennas*, or about *chains*? thanks for the review! i'll resend tomorrow. i personally don't know about 802.11n - and what i need is about *antennas* :) bruno