Message-ID: <508827E6.3000703@candelatech.com> (sfid-20121024_194012_262771_E58B649F)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:39:50 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] multi-channel/interface TX power handling
References: <1351073603-11616-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net>   <50880BD0.6080603@candelatech.com>  <1351093332.10709.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>  <508817E0.5050504@candelatech.com> <1351099817.10709.6.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <1351099817.10709.6.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 10/24/2012 10:30 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 09:31 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>>> Yeah that'd be the only way, most scripts I've seen always just use the
>>> interface anyway though? I'm not totally happy about this, maybe we
>>> should iterate all interfaces? Not really sure ...
>>
>> Well, I think we should make setting the wiphy work...just iterate
>> all interfaces.  Breaking backwards compatibility just causes too
>> much problems for user-space, and many users may either not notice,
>> or not be able to change whatever software is screwing up.
>
> Yeah I guess.
>
>> But, I think we also need some way to know if we can set individual
>> vifs to different tx-power successfully.
>>
>> Maybe a /sys/class/netdev/wlan0/tx-power file to read current power could
>> be added in this patch series?  Then user-space could key off of it's
>> existence, and it would give a simple way to read the current tx-power
>> settings (and possibly set it as well)...
>
> sysfs file sounds like about the worst possible way (except maybe for
> procfs), an nl80211 feature flag could be worthwhile though :)

Ok, a feature flag sounds fine to me.

Thanks,
Ben

>
> johannes
>


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com