From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kimdon Subject: Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:55:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20061119165521.GB25557@devicescape.com> References: <1163802439.3392.47.camel@johannes.berg> <1163895673.15473.11.camel@johannes.berg> <20061119155628.GA25061@devicescape.com> <1163954089.15473.16.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Kimdon , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Benc , "John W. Linville" , Simon Barber , Jouni Malinen , Hong Liu , Michael Wu , Michael Buesch , Ivo van Doorn Return-path: Received: from mail.devicescape.com ([207.138.119.2]:61139 "EHLO mail.devicescape.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756782AbWKSQzX (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:55:23 -0500 To: Johannes Berg Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1163954089.15473.16.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 05:34:49PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 07:56 -0800, David Kimdon wrote: > > > What is wrong with the driver setting the function pointer to NULL for > > the cards that do not support scanning? Where does this requirment > > come from that the function pointers in struct ieee80211_wiphy be > > identical for all cards? > > Well I want to allow drivers to make assign the 33 function pointers in > a static structure, and differences between cards must then be handled > in the non-static part. ok. I am concerned that making this split between per driver and per card is difficult to get right. Setting or not setting a function pointer for an operation is fairly standard practice and I don't see the value in introducing yet another way to indicate support. -David