On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 07:40 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > It turns out that fixing problem #1 (i.e. patch 2) probably isn't > > necessary with the other changes, as no frames should be sent while > > off-channel PS is enabled. Does this still seem like a problem worth > > fixing? > > This is incorrect. We actually do need patch 2 for some hardware. I > forgot that when I was testing with BCM43224 I found that PM gets > actively set or cleared based on the device configuration. It's > impossible to enable PS at the AP without informing the driver. Hm, don't understand. If we're not sending any packets to the AP, why does this matter? Or are you saying it wants nullfunc frames generated in software, but then changes the PM bit in them? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
