Re: [RFC v2 4/8] nl80211/cfg80211: support VHT channel configuration

[Mahesh Palivela <maheshp@posedge.com>]

On 11/20/2012 03:09 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 09:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:57 +0530, Mahesh Palivela wrote:
>>
>>>> +	for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
>>>> +	     freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
>>>> +	     freq += 20) {
>>>> +		c = ieee80211_get_channel(wiphy, freq);
>>>> +		if (!c || c->flags & (IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED |
>>>> +				      IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN |
>>>> +				      IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS |
>>>> +				      IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR))
>>>> +			return false;
>>
>>
>>>> +	for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
>>>> +	     freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
>>>> +	     freq += 20) {
>>>> +		c = ieee80211_get_channel(&rdev->wiphy, freq);
>>>> +		if (!c || c->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>
>>
>>> For loops in both functions seems to be similar. One return false, other
>>> return -EINVAL. Can we remove duplication?
>>
>> True, but they check different flags. I suppose we could have a common
>> function where the checked flags are passed in, I can try that.
>
> I'll add this to the patch:
>
> http://p.sipsolutions.net/24eb25fb98ef2d0b.txt
>

Looks good to me Johannes. Overall your VHT channel config 
implementation done so well.
Partial regulatory check in nl80211_parse_chandef() has to be modified 
to include BW check. I see your TODO comment there.

Thanks,
Mahesh