On 5/21/2025 12:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 09:30 +0530, Roopni Devanathan wrote:
>
>> +++ b/include/net/mac80211.h
>> @@ -4569,7 +4569,8 @@ struct ieee80211_ops {
>> struct ieee80211_key_conf *key,
>> struct ieee80211_key_seq *seq);
>> int (*set_frag_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u32 value);
>> - int (*set_rts_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u32 value);
>> + int (*set_rts_threshold)(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 radio_id,
>> + u32 value);
>
> That should probably have documentation updates. And passing a negative
> value to a u8 seems awkward? Maybe that should just be 'int'? For a
> value that's likely passed in a register, u8 will probably require more
> (machine) code anyway.
>
The following snippet of code tests the value of radio_id in
nl80211_set_wiphy() in net/wireless/nl80211.c:
+ /* Radio idx is not expected for non-multi radio wiphy */
+ if (rdev->wiphy.n_radio <= 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
This snippet returns an error if the radio_id is negative, so radio_id
passed to set_rts_threshold() will always be positive. So can we retain
u8 data type for radio_id?
I'll add documentation update in next version of patch series.
> johannes
