Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 01:21:13AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However, if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware scanning, it'll need a flag. 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? -David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:21, Johannes Berg wrote:
If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However,
if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware
scanning, it'll need a flag.
Similar issues arise with passive_scan().
This patch introduces flags to fix these issues.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
more fallout from my earlier patches... this time it's the scanning ops
that were still used as flags as well as ops.
--- wireless-dev.orig/include/net/d80211.h2006-11-19 01:08:12.439520302
+0100
+++ wireless-dev/include/net/d80211.h 2006-11-19 01:14:14.859520302 +0100
@@ -504,6 +504,12 @@ struct ieee80211_wiphy {
/* do hardware fragmentation */
#define IEEE80211_HW_FRAG (115)
+ /* hardware does scanning instead of software */
+#define IEEE80211_HW_PASSIVE_SCAN (116)
+
+ /* hardware does scanning instead of software */
+#define IEEE80211_HW_SCAN (117)
+
u32 flags; /* hardware flags defined above */
/* Set to the size of a needed device specific skb headroom for TX
skbs. */
@@ -627,7 +633,8 @@ struct ieee80211_ops {
struct ieee80211_scan_conf *conf);
/* Ask the hardware to service the scan request, no need to start
- * the scan state machine in stack. */
+ * the scan state machine in stack.
+ * This callback goes along with the IEEE80211_HW_SCAN flag */
int (*hw_scan)(struct ieee80211_wiphy *wiphy, u8 *ssid,
size_t len);
--- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c 2006-11-19
01:07:49.509520302 +0100
+++ wireless-dev/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c 2006-11-19 01:18:49.879520302
+0100
@@ -2552,7 +2552,7 @@ int ieee80211_sta_req_scan(struct net_de
printk(KERN_DEBUG %s: starting scan\n, dev-name);
- if (local-ops-hw_scan) {
+ if (local-ops-hw_scan local-wiphy.flags IEEE80211_HW_SCAN) {
Please wrap this into ()
(Hm, actually, the compiler should complain on this...)
int rc = local-ops-hw_scan(local_to_wiphy(local),
ssid, ssid_len);
if (!rc) {
--- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/ieee80211_scan.c 2006-11-19
01:18:19.249520302 +0100
+++ wireless-dev/net/d80211/ieee80211_scan.c 2006-11-19 01:18:22.599520302
+0100
@@ -114,7 +114,8 @@ static void ieee80211_scan_start(struct
struct ieee80211_channel *chan = NULL;
int ret;
- if (!local-hw-passive_scan) {
+ if (!local-ops-passive_scan ||
+ !(local-wiphy.flags IEEE80211_HW_PASSIVE_SCAN)) {
printk(KERN_DEBUG %s: Scan handler called, yet the hardware
does not support passive scanning. Disabled.\n,
local-mdev-name);
--
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
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. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 17:15 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
- if (local-ops-hw_scan) {
+ if (local-ops-hw_scan local-wiphy.flags IEEE80211_HW_SCAN) {
Please wrap this into ()
Good point :)
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 08:55 -0800, David Kimdon wrote: 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. I guess we can punt this patch until some driver shows up that actually has some cards that need the function and some that don't. I'm actually guessing such a driver won't exist but wanted this for completeness in the split between _wiphy and _ops. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 05:57:39PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 08:55 -0800, David Kimdon wrote: 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. I guess we can punt this patch until some driver shows up that actually has some cards that need the function and some that don't. I'm actually guessing such a driver won't exist but wanted this for completeness in the split between _wiphy and _ops. Perhaps that is a split that we do not need? I don't see the problem that 'd80211: split ieee80211_hw' is solving. I do see what it is doing, but maybe I am missing something . . . johannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:25 -0800, David Kimdon wrote: Perhaps that is a split that we do not need? I don't see the problem that 'd80211: split ieee80211_hw' is solving. I do see what it is doing, but maybe I am missing something . . . Oh, I just figured that on 64-bit systems the _ops part is something like 264 bytes that we needlessly allocate for every device when in reality it doesn't really change between cards for a single driver. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[PATCH] d80211: fix scan issues with new ops
If hardware shall do scanning, the hw_scan operation must be set. However,
if the driver is for multiple cards that may or may not do hardware
scanning, it'll need a flag.
Similar issues arise with passive_scan().
This patch introduces flags to fix these issues.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
more fallout from my earlier patches... this time it's the scanning ops
that were still used as flags as well as ops.
--- wireless-dev.orig/include/net/d80211.h 2006-11-19 01:08:12.439520302
+0100
+++ wireless-dev/include/net/d80211.h 2006-11-19 01:14:14.859520302 +0100
@@ -504,6 +504,12 @@ struct ieee80211_wiphy {
/* do hardware fragmentation */
#define IEEE80211_HW_FRAG (115)
+ /* hardware does scanning instead of software */
+#define IEEE80211_HW_PASSIVE_SCAN (116)
+
+ /* hardware does scanning instead of software */
+#define IEEE80211_HW_SCAN (117)
+
u32 flags; /* hardware flags defined above */
/* Set to the size of a needed device specific skb headroom for TX
skbs. */
@@ -627,7 +633,8 @@ struct ieee80211_ops {
struct ieee80211_scan_conf *conf);
/* Ask the hardware to service the scan request, no need to start
-* the scan state machine in stack. */
+* the scan state machine in stack.
+* This callback goes along with the IEEE80211_HW_SCAN flag */
int (*hw_scan)(struct ieee80211_wiphy *wiphy, u8 *ssid,
size_t len);
--- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c2006-11-19
01:07:49.509520302 +0100
+++ wireless-dev/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c 2006-11-19 01:18:49.879520302
+0100
@@ -2552,7 +2552,7 @@ int ieee80211_sta_req_scan(struct net_de
printk(KERN_DEBUG %s: starting scan\n, dev-name);
- if (local-ops-hw_scan) {
+ if (local-ops-hw_scan local-wiphy.flags IEEE80211_HW_SCAN) {
int rc = local-ops-hw_scan(local_to_wiphy(local),
ssid, ssid_len);
if (!rc) {
--- wireless-dev.orig/net/d80211/ieee80211_scan.c 2006-11-19
01:18:19.249520302 +0100
+++ wireless-dev/net/d80211/ieee80211_scan.c2006-11-19 01:18:22.599520302
+0100
@@ -114,7 +114,8 @@ static void ieee80211_scan_start(struct
struct ieee80211_channel *chan = NULL;
int ret;
- if (!local-hw-passive_scan) {
+ if (!local-ops-passive_scan ||
+ !(local-wiphy.flags IEEE80211_HW_PASSIVE_SCAN)) {
printk(KERN_DEBUG %s: Scan handler called, yet the hardware
does not support passive scanning. Disabled.\n,
local-mdev-name);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
