Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.214.48]:33017 "EHLO mail-bk0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752852Ab3HAJOJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:14:09 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id jf20so572297bkc.7 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 02:14:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1375342845.8608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <1375087158-22077-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375087158-22077-2-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1375342845.8608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:14:07 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20130801_111426_162218_648A5CE1) Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] nl/cfg80211: add chan_time for scan request From: Michal Kazior To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 1 August 2013 09:40, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? Is there a reason this should be differentiated? > Also maybe there should be a bit saying "I support scan timing" or even > the min/max times? Sounds good. I can add it. > 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 :) Motivation behind this patchset is to simplify ACS implementation and depend on scan. This also allows easier fallback from survey-based ACS to BSS-based one. Other use cases are a side-effect so perhaps clarifying the intent in the docs is enough. Pozdrawiam / Best regards, Micha? Kazior.