Subject: Re: [RFC] {cfg,nl}80211 API
From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: David Lamparter <lists@diac24.net>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1181639707.29767.57.camel@johannes.berg>
References: <20070611230434.GA13221@charon.n2.diac24.net>
	 <1181639707.29767.57.camel@johannes.berg>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:08:36 -0400
Message-Id: <1181650117.17599.12.camel@xo-28-0B-88.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Great stuff!
> 
> >   - getting virtual interfaces works via ifindex, which needs to be known.
> >     - no dumping (would have locking issues with userspace MLME)
> >     - use list of vifs from GET_WIPHY
> >     - only thing it currently should return is vif type. essid & stuff
> >       should be retrievable via GET_ASSOCIATION, which won't be valid for
> >       monitor interfaces
> 
> Hmm, in fact, if we go that route then we can do dumping for vifs (by
> wiphy I guess) since all this information is available in the kernel,
> only GET_ASSOCIATION should need a callout. vif type can be dumped just
> fine.
> 
> > So, what's left?
> > - more PHY config stuff?
> >   - TX power? Should be able to configure a lower value...
> 
> Yeah, but as we said, this really needs to tie in with any regulatory
> stuff.
> 
> >   - antenna selection?
> 
> Sounds reasonable, needs automatic/... but for .11n it might need some
> more things. Not sure.

Just a quick question; for .11n and later, do we care about being as
detailed as specifying each antenna and whether or not each antenna can
be used for TX and/or RX, and then being able to assign specific
antennas to either TX or RX?  Or does hardware expose a simpler
interface like "2x2" or "3x2"?  That means either:

set-antennas([(1, TX & RX), (2, TX & RX), (3, RX)])

or

set-antennas(tx=2, rx=3)

Dan