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: <d94af0309a1c7a1dee1841580b5938898426a10b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mac80211: Handling driver updated MU-EDCA params
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:07:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <000801d78e5b$55d46530$017d2f90$@codeaurora.org>
References: <1607468044-31789-1-git-send-email-msinada@codeaurora.org>
                 <1607468044-31789-2-git-send-email-msinada@codeaurora.org>
         <0f45b43c5a2dd4d0d2839487540611994ec10feb.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <000801d78e5b$55d46530$017d2f90$@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 19:48 -0700, Muna Sinada wrote:
> Hello Johannes,
> 
> I saw on your review comment that this wrapper is not needed. I wanted
> to confirm with you if it would be ok to call a cfg80211 API from a
> mac80211 based driver, since that is what would be done if this
> wrapper is removed.

Yes, that's fine.

>  Additionally, another reason I have this wrapper is so I can place a
> tracepoint. What are your thoughts about this?
You already have a tracepoint on cfg80211, seems sufficient?

johannes