Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:56428 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751921AbaIXHvk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:51:40 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id em10so6335928wid.5 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 00:51:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1411518383-32634-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> References: <1411518383-32634-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1411518383-32634-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:51:39 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20140924_095144_592684_48F07179) Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] ath10k: re-config ht_caps when chainmask is modified. From: Michal Kazior To: Ben Greear Cc: linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 24 September 2014 02:26, wrote: [...] > +static struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap ath10k_create_vht_cap(struct ath10k *ar, > + bool use_cfg_chains) > { > struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = {0}; > u16 mcs_map; > int i; > + int nrf = ar->num_rf_chains; > + > + if (use_cfg_chains && ar->cfg_tx_chainmask) > + nrf = get_nss_from_chainmask(ar->cfg_tx_chainmask); Is use_cfg_chains really necessary here? Is setting tx/rx chainmask to 0x0 make any sense at all? Shouldn't we deny it or make it fallback to the supported tx/rx chainmask values? Michał