[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:44:42 +0100
From: Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: "Gautam (Gautam Kumar) Shukla" <gautams@...adcom.com>,
"linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jithu Jance <jithu@...adcom.com>,
Sreenath S <sreenats@...adcom.com>,
Vladimir Kondratiev <vkondrat@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux-wireless: Added psk in struct cfg80211_connect_params
needed for offloading 4way handshake to driver
On 11-11-14 11:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:35 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
>> What did pop up is the wiphy flags vs. nl80211 feature flags. When that
>> comes up it looks like 'potAtoes, potaetoes' to me.
>>
>> So is there are clear design rule for when to use which flag. For me the
>> wiphy object represents the device/firmware and 4-way handshake offload
>> support is determined by what the device/firmware supports.
>
> There are three types of flags:
>
> * wiphy flag attributes - deprecated as far as I'm concerned
Ok. deprecated is clear enough ;-)
> * wiphy nl80211 feature flags - much easier to use in kernel (and
> userspace)
> * nl80211 protocol flags - only one exists
> (NL80211_PROTOCOL_FEATURE_SPLIT_WIPHY_DUMP)
Thanks,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists