Return-path: Received: from mail.neratec.ch ([80.75.119.105]:59512 "EHLO mail.neratec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933891Ab1KCQpN (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:45:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB2C516.1020703@neratec.com> (sfid-20111103_174517_526422_823A4088) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:45:10 +0100 From: Zefir Kurtisi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mohammed Shafi CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com, nbd@openwrt.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] ath9k: integrate initial DFS module References: <1320328553-28066-1-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> <1320328553-28066-3-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/03/2011 04:27 PM, Mohammed Shafi wrote: > Hi Zefir, > Hello Mohammed, > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: >> [...] >> >> + if (ah->caps.hw_caps && ATH9K_HW_CAP_DFS) { >> + /** >> + * enable radar pulse detection >> + * >> + * TODO: do this only for DFS channels >> + */ >> + ah->private_ops.set_radar_params(ah, &ah->radar_conf); > > can we do this something like ath9k_hw_set_radar_params? > why we need a seperate debug file for dfs, had i missed something? > My first proposal included the DFS statistics in debug.c, but Luis asked me to keep it separated (see http://www.mail-archive.com/ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org/msg06821.html). I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know. I'll add a ath9k_hw_set_radar_params() in v3. Thanks, Zefir