RE: [RFC v3] cfg80211/mac80211: 802.11ac changes

[Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 03:06 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Arend van Spriel [arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:32 AM
> To: Johannes Berg
> Cc: Mahesh Palivela; linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RFC v3] cfg80211/mac80211: 802.11ac changes
> 
> On 06/21/2012 08:39 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 20:34 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2012 08:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 16:51 +0000, Mahesh Palivela wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +/* 802.11ac VHT Capabilities */
> >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_7991                0x00000001
> >>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_11454               0x00000002
> >>>
> >>> I have a feeling there should be a value for 3895, since this isn't
> >>> really a bitfield only (it doesn't make sense to set both of these, in
> >>> fact 3 is reserved)
> >>
> >> These are matching the values specified for the VHP Capability Info IE.
> >> 3895 is specified as 0. Value 3 is reserved because it is not to be
> >> regarded as a bit field.
> >
> > Right, but I think it'd make more sense to actually have the 3895 value
> > as a constant here so you're not tempted to think that you could set
> 
> [MP] Should I declare another constant for this?
> +#define IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MAX_MPDU_LENGTH_3895   0

Yes I think that would be good

johannes

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