| Message ID | 20160721153948.32171-1-me@bobcopeland.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Johannes Berg |
| Headers | show |
Hi Bob, On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com> wrote: > iw was showing 'width: unknown' for channels on OCB interfaces; teach > it the values for 5/10 MHz so it will show the configured width. > > Signed-off-by: Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com> > --- > interface.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/interface.c b/interface.c > index 209561d..2802235 100644 > --- a/interface.c > +++ b/interface.c > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ char *channel_width_name(enum nl80211_chan_width width) > return "80+80 MHz"; > case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160: > return "160 MHz"; > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_5: > + return "5 MHz"; > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_10: > + return "10 MHz"; > default: > return "unknown"; > } Judging by the previous two entries, it looks like the case statements are sorted, so should these ones therefore be at the top of the list? Thanks,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 07:53:35PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Bob, Hi! > > --- a/interface.c > > +++ b/interface.c > > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ char *channel_width_name(enum nl80211_chan_width width) > > return "80+80 MHz"; > > case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160: > > return "160 MHz"; > > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_5: > > + return "5 MHz"; > > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_10: > > + return "10 MHz"; > > default: > > return "unknown"; > > } > > Judging by the previous two entries, it looks like the case statements > are sorted, so should these ones therefore be at the top of the list? These are sorted by NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_* attribute value, which makes a little more sense to me than sorting by the string or numerically by width, but sure, I can do it either way.
Hi Bob, On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 07:53:35PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: >> Hi Bob, > > Hi! > >> > --- a/interface.c >> > +++ b/interface.c >> > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ char *channel_width_name(enum nl80211_chan_width width) >> > return "80+80 MHz"; >> > case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160: >> > return "160 MHz"; >> > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_5: >> > + return "5 MHz"; >> > + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_10: >> > + return "10 MHz"; >> > default: >> > return "unknown"; >> > } >> >> Judging by the previous two entries, it looks like the case statements >> are sorted, so should these ones therefore be at the top of the list? > > These are sorted by NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_* attribute value, which makes > a little more sense to me than sorting by the string or numerically by > width, but sure, I can do it either way. That's fine by me: I was asking because it looked like you might have just added them to the bottom. Thanks,
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 11:39 -0400, Bob Copeland wrote: > iw was showing 'width: unknown' for channels on OCB interfaces; teach > it the values for 5/10 MHz so it will show the configured width. > Applied, thanks. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/interface.c b/interface.c index 209561d..2802235 100644 --- a/interface.c +++ b/interface.c @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ char *channel_width_name(enum nl80211_chan_width width) return "80+80 MHz"; case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_160: return "160 MHz"; + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_5: + return "5 MHz"; + case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_10: + return "10 MHz"; default: return "unknown"; }
iw was showing 'width: unknown' for channels on OCB interfaces; teach it the values for 5/10 MHz so it will show the configured width. Signed-off-by: Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com> --- interface.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)