[PATCH 01/16] wcn36xx: Add main.c
Eugene Krasnikov
k.eugene.e at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 05:00:47 EDT 2013
> [remove wcn list, it annoys me with moderator messages]
Sorry for that, now should be fixed.
>> >> + if (IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_PAIRWISE & key_conf->flags) {
>> >> + sta_priv->is_data_encrypted = true;
>> >> + /* Reconfigure bss with encrypt_type */
>> >> + if (NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION == vif->type)
>> >> + wcn36xx_smd_config_bss(wcn,
>> >> + vif,
>> >> + sta,
>> >> + sta->addr,
>> >> + true);
>> >
>> > It seems to me this should not be here but you should have mac80211 set
>> > something in e.g. bss_conf that indicates encryption?
>> >
>>
>> It's a good idea and I tried to find anything encryption related in
>> bss_conf but without luck. I do not like this line myself so I would
>> really appreciate if you can point where exactly in
>> bss_conf/bss_info_changed information about encryption is located.
>
> There isn't anything, but you could always add it.
Aha, ok will add this to my todo list:)
>> >> + static const u32 cipher_suites[] = {
>> >> + WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_TKIP,
>> >> + WLAN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP,
>> >> + };
>> >
>> > You actually don't want to support WEP, not even in software? Otherwise
>> > just leave this out and mac80211 will add it.
>>
>> WEP is supported by HW but wcn36xx does not configure it yet. Is that
>> ok to add HW WEP encryption in nearest future after wcn36xx is pushed
>> to upstream?
>
> I don't see why you'd even bother - why not just use software encryption
> for WEP for the time being? Then you don't need this code.
Because if I add something I test it, and that will take the same
amount of time as to add HW WEP ;) Let me add HW WEP since it's faster
then SW WEP.
>> >> + wcn->hw->wiphy->iface_combinations = &if_comb;
>> >> + wcn->hw->wiphy->n_iface_combinations = 1;
>> >
>> > Your code with "wcn->current_vif = " etc. *really* doesn't look like you
>> > support combinations. Are you positive this is OK?
>>
>> So far wcn36xx supports only one interface at once. But in the nearest
>> future it will definitely support more than one. So how about keeping
>> this for future?;)
>
> It's *wrong* though - you're saying two interfaces are supported and
> then they aren't. Don't do that.
You are right. Will remove this for now.
--
Best regards,
Eugene
More information about the wcn36xx
mailing list