MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6VXSba1=bntediLrnh+T90fBPs_U75GmtaE2XvBQF-KSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1414046257-22184-1-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com>
 <1414046257-22184-3-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <CAB=NE6VaTS+d-NJDkezN5+4b9txVrXXynMHZGxVjG08aEC2EsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+XVXffu1tbsm=yqJnGXnJeg3GmfixcYRiY3SFcPKzB48C8p1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAB=NE6VXSba1=bntediLrnh+T90fBPs_U75GmtaE2XvBQF-KSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:42:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+XVXffDKH+91XTngbufRbaHOvoZ9Bv4q6bB73qV2FEP8=6j8Q@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20141113_164316_723327_09CCE42C)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cfg80211: leave invalid channels on regdomain change
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> wrote:
>>>> +static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct ieee80211_channel *ch;
>>>> +       struct cfg80211_chan_def chandef;
>>>> +       struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = wiphy_to_rdev(wiphy);
>>>> +       bool ret = true;
>>>> +
>>>> +       wdev_lock(wdev);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!wdev->netdev || !netif_running(wdev->netdev))
>>>> +               goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +       switch (wdev->iftype) {
>>>> +       case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
>>>> +       case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_GO:
>>>> +               if (!wdev->beacon_interval)
>>>> +                       goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +               ret = cfg80211_reg_can_beacon(wiphy,
>>>> +                                             &wdev->chandef, wdev->iftype);
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       case NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION:
>>>> +       case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT:
>>>> +               if (!wdev->current_bss ||
>>>> +                   !wdev->current_bss->pub.channel)
>>>> +                       goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +               ch = wdev->current_bss->pub.channel;
>>>> +               if (rdev->ops->get_channel &&
>>>> +                   !rdev_get_channel(rdev, wdev, &chandef))
>>>> +                       ret = cfg80211_chandef_usable(wiphy, &chandef,
>>>> +                                                     IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>>>> +               else
>>>> +                       ret = !(ch->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       default:
>>>> +               /* others not implemented for now */
>>>
>>> Looks good to me except this of course, since its a flag that will
>>> enable this per wiphy might as well WARN() if you really do not want
>>> to think about this. That means that once someone does enable this on
>>> a wiphy with the other type of interfaces they'll have to think about
>>> this, likewise one could warn if a wiphy interface is registered with
>>> the flag to follow this but supports a mode not handled here yet.
>>
>> But I do want to support a wiphy that has other modes
>> (NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC), but I don't want people to get warnings every
>> time they use IBSS.
>> Maybe I'll rename the flag to REGULATORY_ENFORCE_AP_STA_CHANNELS?
>
> Then it depends on how important this feature is for your regulatory
> requirements. If its important then I'd wait until its properly
> implemented, if its not required for the other modes then a simple
> information message would suffice.

Let's settle for the pr_info then.

Arik