From: Felix Fietkau Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:15:17 +0100 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [RFC v2 2/2] ath9k: integrate initial DFS module In-Reply-To: <4EB2D6DE.3050207@neratec.com> References: <1320328553-28066-1-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> <1320328553-28066-3-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> <4EB2AF36.9070608@openwrt.org> <4EB2D6DE.3050207@neratec.com> Message-ID: <4EB2DA35.3040708@openwrt.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On 2011-11-03 7:01 PM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: > Hi Felix, > > while I was waiting for your feedback on my related patch, I assumed > you're okay with having those rx filter flags preserved in ath_calcrxfilter. I did send some feedback on the rx filter preserve patch. I think it's unnecessary and should be left out. If calcrxfilter properly returns the ATH9K_RX_FILTER_PHYRADAR flag where necessary, then no preserve logic is needed. > I'll check your proposal for v3. > > BTW, as the comment says, it is TODO enable radar detection only for > DFS channels. Beside the lack of the management module to provide the > relevant information, it comes handy to test pulse detection on non-DFS > channels without the need to modify hostapd ;) Yeah, but it would be nice to split hardware capability from runtime state early on. - Felix