On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 23:46, Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 21:36, Arend van Spriel
> <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/18/2018 1:54 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 at 12:48, Arend van Spriel
> > > <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> wrote:
> > >> On 5/30/2018 1:52 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > >>> I'm providing extra version info of tested firmware images as requested
> > >>> by Arend in another e-mail thread.
> > >>
> > >> Looking into our firmware repo it there are two flags, ie. WL_MONITOR
> > >> and WL_RADIOTAP. It seems both are set for firmware containing -stamon-
> > >> feature. Your list below confirms that. I still plan to add indication
> > >> for WL_RADIOTAP in the "cap" iovar, but a stamon feature check could be
> > >> used for older firmwares.
> > >
> > > The problem is that there isn't a direct mapping between what's
> > > visible with the "tail" command and what firmware returns for the
> > > "cap" iovar. Just to be sure I bumped #define MAX_CAPS_BUFFER_SIZE to
> > > 1024. Firmware that has "stamon" when checked with "tail" command
> > > doesn't report "stamon" over "cap" iovar. So I can't detect if
> > > firmware was compiled with WL_MONITOR and WL_RADIOTAP using "cap"
> > > iovar.
> >
> > All true. My suggestion is to look for "monitor" and "rtap" in the "cap"
> > iovar response to detect if firmware is compiled with WL_MONITOR and
> > WL_RADIOTAP respectively. When one (or both) of these is not detected,
> > we could fallback to try a stamon iovar and if it is supported enable
> > both WL_MONITOR and WL_RADIOTAP. I am looking into a good candidate for
> > the stamon iovar so I can prepare a patch.
>
> Oh, I wasn't aware of the "stamon" iovar (or missed that in your
> e-mails). If that works, it'll be a very nice fallback way of
> detecting WL_MONITOR and WL_RADIOTAP!

I just tried "stamon" iovar and it doesn't work. Following call:
u32 var;
brcmf_fil_iovar_int_get(ifp, "stamon", &var);
returns -52

Can you look at that "stamon" iovar again, please?

-- 
Rafał

Reply via email to