On 09/24/2014 12:51 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:

On 24 September 2014 02:26,  [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]

quoted

+static struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap ath10k_create_vht_cap(struct ath10k *ar,
+                                                         bool use_cfg_chains)
  {
         struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = {0};
         u16 mcs_map;
         int i;
+       int nrf = ar->num_rf_chains;
+
+       if (use_cfg_chains && ar->cfg_tx_chainmask)
+               nrf = get_nss_from_chainmask(ar->cfg_tx_chainmask);

Is use_cfg_chains really necessary here? Is setting tx/rx chainmask to
0x0 make any sense at all? Shouldn't we deny it or make it fallback to
the supported tx/rx chainmask values?

I was thinking we should register with supported values, instead of
configured values.  That is the intention of the code.  In case we
ever re-register after user has configured the system, this should
retain that functionality.  If it is impossible to re-register the
wiphy, then this extra use_cfg_chains logic could go away.

On startup, before user ever configures anything (and most users never will),
the cfg-tx-chainmask is 0, so it would stay with chip's defaults.

Thanks,
Ben

Michał
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Ben Greear [off-list ref]
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com