Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:53924 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752110Ab3HAHku (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:40:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1375342845.8608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130801_094053_036358_7E83B200) Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] nl/cfg80211: add chan_time for scan request From: Johannes Berg To: Michal Kazior Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:40:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> References: <1375087158-22077-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:39 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > + * @NL80211_ATTR_SCAN_CHAN_TIME: Specifies how many msec should a driver spend > + * on each channel during scanning. This is optional and the default is > + * leave the decision up to the driver. This setting may, but preferrably typo: preferably :) > + * shouldn't, be ignored by driver. This seems a bit iffy - you don't differentiate between active/passive scans? Also maybe there should be a bit saying "I support scan timing" or even the min/max times? This also interferes a bit with some other scan optimisations that could be done at a low firmware level, so I think we should be careful and actually say that this is really more intended for measurement use cases and not for normal scans? Or maybe we should have a separate measurement command with similar semantics? This all doesn't seem very clear to me yet :) johannes