From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752537AbaKKKjO (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:39:14 -0500 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:57511 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751751AbaKKKjM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:39:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1415702338.2163.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux-wireless: Added psk in struct cfg80211_connect_params needed for offloading 4way handshake to driver From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel Cc: "Gautam (Gautam Kumar) Shukla" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Jithu Jance , Sreenath S , Vladimir Kondratiev Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:38:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5461E67E.7010408@broadcom.com> References: <1415698161.2163.0.camel@sipsolutions.net> <5461DCC9.5050702@broadcom.com> <1415700220.2163.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <5461E67E.7010408@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:35 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > What did pop up is the wiphy flags vs. nl80211 feature flags. When that > comes up it looks like 'potAtoes, potaetoes' to me. > > So is there are clear design rule for when to use which flag. For me the > wiphy object represents the device/firmware and 4-way handshake offload > support is determined by what the device/firmware supports. There are three types of flags: * wiphy flag attributes - deprecated as far as I'm concerned * wiphy nl80211 feature flags - much easier to use in kernel (and userspace) * nl80211 protocol flags - only one exists (NL80211_PROTOCOL_FEATURE_SPLIT_WIPHY_DUMP) johannes