This makes the current hack used to prevent 802.11g cards from scanning with
802.11b channels not break scanning in 802.11b drivers.
Signed-off-by: Michael Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c b/net/d80211/ieee80211_sta.c
index 2720f1d..5c8fe22 100644
--- a/net/d80211/i
On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:32:35 -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> This makes the current hack used to prevent 802.11g cards from scanning with
> 802.11b channels not break scanning in 802.11b drivers.
I think this should be better:
Signed-off-by: Jiri Benc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/d80211/ieee80211.c
On Thursday 11 May 2006 17:54, you wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:32:35 -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> > This makes the current hack used to prevent 802.11g cards from scanning
> > with
> > 802.11b channels not break scanning in 802.11b drivers.
>
> I think this should be better:
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Thursday 11 May 2006 11:54, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:32:35 -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> > This makes the current hack used to prevent 802.11g cards from scanning
> > with 802.11b channels not break scanning in 802.11b drivers.
>
> I think this should be better:
>
I think this is ov
On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:31:39 -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> I think this is overkill to fix a hack. IMHO, scan_skip_11b shouldn't exist
> in
> the first place. One alternative would be to modify 802.11g drivers to not
> set IEEE80211_CHAN_W_SCAN on 802.11b channels when there are equivalent
> 802.1
On Friday 12 May 2006 06:47, you wrote:
> > It seems like hw_modes is more useful for saying
> > what modes shouldn't be used than saying what modes are supported by the
> > hardware and should be used.
>
> This is exactly the purpose of hw_modes. This also means you don't need
> any validation.
>
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:35:27 -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> Hm, so why not add something that will tell you what modes are supported by
> the hardware?
Sounds reasonable.
> Only problem with this patch is if the hardware adds any modes after
> registration, they will be disabled initially. Hopefull
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 13:37 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
>
> bcm43xx does that. If I understand it correctly, bcm43xx driver doesn't
> know allowed modes until it loads firmware. And the firmware is not
> loaded until the device is opened (they probably have a reason for
> this).
No, that's not right
[removed some people from Cc: list as this is probably not much
interesting for them]
On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:04:44 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 13:37 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > bcm43xx does that. If I understand it correctly, bcm43xx driver doesn't
> > know allowed modes un
On Monday 15 May 2006 15:35, you wrote:
> [removed some people from Cc: list as this is probably not much
> interesting for them]
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:04:44 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 13:37 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > > bcm43xx does that. If I understand it correctl
On Mon, 15 May 2006 16:01:48 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> No, We must allocate the ieee80211_hw, before we can attach the board.
> But before we attached the board, we don't know what hardware it is.
> Sure, this can be worked around by some very ugly hack (It was done
> in an early version of th
On Monday 15 May 2006 07:37, Jiri Benc wrote:
> This issue can be easily solved by not masking hw_modes by
> valid_hw_modes in ieee80211_ioctl_prism2_param and
> ieee80211_precalc_modes. Just check (hw_modes & valid_hw_modes) instead
> of hw_modes in ieee80211_sta_scan_timer.
>
> And yes, hw_modes
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> On Monday 15 May 2006 07:37, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > This issue can be easily solved by not masking hw_modes by
> > valid_hw_modes in ieee80211_ioctl_prism2_param and
> > ieee80211_precalc_modes. Just check (hw_modes & valid_hw_modes) inste
On Friday 19 May 2006 14:06, John W. Linville wrote:
> Are we satisfied w/ this patch? If so, please repost the patch after
> cleaning-up the changelog according to the rules here:
>
> http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
>
I was going to after getting a response, but Jiri Benc already pull
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:03:11PM -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> On Friday 19 May 2006 14:06, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Are we satisfied w/ this patch? If so, please repost the patch after
> > cleaning-up the changelog according to the rules here:
> >
> > http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
>
15 matches
Mail list logo