Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:44:22 +0900 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Egorenkov <egorenar@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting HT capabilities in net80211 Message-ID: <6A317237-60A2-440A-9DBC-511545C34B36@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2d3b7e441003102332l1cc9b9ddh1e62fce61129248@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d3b7e441003042348h2150de3eub5a7af5248b5e947@mail.gmail.com> <4B92F057.9080508@errno.com> <2d3b7e441003070004r74646cdci268a5101056c50e2@mail.gmail.com> <FF382027-F72F-40BA-B14C-7F2F72DD684A@gmail.com> <2d3b7e441003102332l1cc9b9ddh1e62fce61129248@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11 Mar 2010, at 16:32, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > There are already constants defined in iee80211.h. > E.g. IEEE80211_HTCAP_MCSFBACK_UNSOL. > > But the problem is that e.g. IEEE80211_HTCAP_MCSFBACK_UNSOL is equal > to 0x0200 > and the capabilty constant IEEE80211_HTCAP_RXSTBC_2STREAM has the > same value. > So we cannot use ic_htcap field for both capabilities because they > will overwrite each other. > > But we can add a new field to ieee80211com struct like ic_htextcaps > where all the extended > HT capabilities can be set. And this new field can be checked in > function ieee80211_add_htcap_body. I'm okay with this route. > Another option is to change the value of > IEEE80211_HTCAP_MCSFBACK_UNSOL and all other extended capability > constant which conflict with normal HT capability constants. I think you don't want to do this because sooner or later you'll need ic_htextcaps. -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6A317237-60A2-440A-9DBC-511545C34B36>