Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:50474 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933726AbcLMQJQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:09:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1481645351.20412.34.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20161213_171012_140266_DC3F2D22) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cfg80211: Add new NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX_PRIORITY to support BTCOEX From: Johannes Berg To: Tamizh chelvam Cc: c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:09:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5e5e8971c96293a81e7cb37bcdfbd593@codeaurora.org> References: <1478610932-21954-1-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> <1478610932-21954-3-git-send-email-c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com> <1480949353.31788.27.camel@sipsolutions.net> <5e5e8971c96293a81e7cb37bcdfbd593@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > >  /** > > > + * wiphy_btcoex_support_flags > > > + * This enum has the driver supported frame types for > > > BTCOEX. > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BE_PREFERRED - Supports Best Effort frame for > > > BTCOEX > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BK_PREFERRED - supports Background frame for > > > BTCOEX > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_VI_PREFERRED - supports Video frame for BTCOEX > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_VO_PREFERRED - supports Voice frame for BTCOEX > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_BEACON_PREFERRED - supports Beacon frame for > > > BTCOEX > > > + * @WIPHY_WLAN_MGMT_PREFERRED - supports Management frames for > > > BTCOEX. > > > + */ > > > > That's not making much sense to me? > > > > is it fine to have as WIPHY_BTCOEX_BE_PREFERRED ? It's not really clear to me what you intend to do this - if it's really support flags then you really should name those better. > > > +/** > > > + * enum wiphy_btcoex_priority - BTCOEX priority level > > > + * This enum defines priority level for BTCOEX > > > + * WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_LOW - low priority frames over BT > > > traffic > > > + * WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_HIGH - high priority frames over BT > > > traffic > > > + */ > > > + > > > +enum wiphy_btcoex_priority { > > > + WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_LOW = false, > > > + WIPHY_WLAN_PREFERRED_HIGH = true, > > > +}; > > > > That false/true seems just strange. > > > > I will just use as a enum without assigning false/true. What do you even need this enum for though? > > > +enum nl80211_btcoex_priority { > > > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_INVALID, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_BE_PREFERRED, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_BK_PREFERRED, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_VI_PREFERRED, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_VO_PREFERRED, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_BEACON_PREFERRED, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_MGMT_PREFERRED, > > > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_LAST, > > > + NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_MAX = > > > + __NL80211_WLAN_PREFERRED_LAST - 1, > > > +}; > > > > Wouldn't a bitmap be easier? > > > since this is to distinguish between different btcoex priorities and > we  > are not going to do any manipulations on these parameters. > It is just used as flag attribute. But why the (parsing) complexity, when a single bitmap would do? johannes