On 2016-01-22 15:57, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 01/22/2016 03:13 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2015-12-09 21:20, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> If user has configured TX antennas to be less than what >>> hardware advertises, the MCS reported by hardware will >>> be too large. So, remove MCS sets accordingly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Why is it necessary to do this in user space? Shouldn't the driver >> recalculate its MCS capabilities and let hostapd use the updated >> information. >> IIRC that's what ath9k is doing at the moment. > > > I guess that could work too, but long term, I think hostapd should have > a lot more control over this anyway: Maybe one vAP would like to be 1x1 > and another 3x3 on the same radio (different vdevs) for instance. I'd > use this feature for testing, but perhaps others could take advantage > of it in other ways. I don't think that makes sense, and it doesn't really match up with hardware capabilities either. You can't just enable/disable antennas per VAP. And if you just want to advertise different MCS capabilities for testing, then antenna configuration is a pretty bad and hackish way to achieve that goal. > I haven't tested ath9k in this scenario...have you been able to confirm > that the beacons show proper MCS values with stock hostapd when you lower > the NSS? Yes, I just tested it with the current code and the MCS information is correct. Running iw phy0 info will also show reduced HT capabilities. - Felix _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
