MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1488202062.28431.7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20170223120211.22358-1-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
 <20170223120211.22358-2-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com> <1488202062.28431.7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From: Andrew Zaborowski <andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:26:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOq732JzrGxFUa5BiuO=Sz7gscRV7PFxOOyy1xf6mtmQfUqkaA@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20170227_162833_193675_87235D59)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] mac80211_hwsim: Report radio addresses in NEW_RADIO/GET_RADIO
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On 27 February 2017 at 14:27, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>> Additionally I tried to add a HWSIM_ATTR_WIPHY to report the wiphy
>> index directly without users going through wiphy name to index
>> mapping, but get_wiphy_idx() is internal to cfg80211.  The index is
>> exposed to userspace and is more useful than the name so I wonder if
>> this function should be exported from cfg80211.
>
> Do you really need the address?

As it turns out it can be read from /sys, but I do need it so I can
know what to put in HWSIM_ATTR_ADDR_RECEIVER based on the destination
addr in the frame or if I want to forward the frame to all radios.  Or
is there another way to know that?

>
> I'd actually prefer to *only* have the wiphy index, and I don't really
> see a problem with moving the wiphy_idx from struct
> cfg80211_registered_device to struct wiphy.

Ok, I'll try that.  get_wiphy_idx can stay in place, not sure if I
should just drop it.

By having *only* the wiphy index you don't mean dropping the radio
names altogether?  The don't seem useful but userspace may expect
them.

Best regards