Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <695723cd3134d8abf120c886c5d7d5791cae0d03.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] cfg80211: Add new channel flag to identify 6GHz
 PSC channel
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu <pradeepc@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     ath11k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 10:57:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <05fcfc43f2d59dd549a65a83ab60df60@codeaurora.org>
References: <20200522072431.27601-1-pradeepc@codeaurora.org>
         <20200522072431.27601-2-pradeepc@codeaurora.org>
         <fa1879bf357c091277972b2a370799fdf6192ae3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <05fcfc43f2d59dd549a65a83ab60df60@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.2 (3.36.2-1.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 16:46 -0700, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote:
> IMO, accessing flag would be faster instead of computation, as this info
> is handy (already in cache) when accessing ieee80211_channel.

True.

> However, considering general usage for this info would be only for 
> control
> path, it should be ok to expose function instead of maintaining separate 
> flag.

Yeah, I can't really see where we'd care ... this is used only when we
set up a scan, etc.

> Please let me know your suggestion..

I'll now go and try to consolidate all your changes and ours, we'll see
what falls out.

johannes