On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 09:44 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:32:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 23:15 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:57:00AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:47 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > > > > > > > That sounds strange -- how does ath9k even know about an interface > > that's not UP? Maybe you mean it didn't start an AP? > > Yeah, that is what I meant - the AP wasn't started on this on that interface. Ok. > > Why does the driver even report it by interface? It seems it should do > > it on a channel context, or even on the hw since it can only be a single > > channel in that case anyway? > > Well, yeah the reporting is currently done per interface. Reporting radars > for the hw is certainly possible as well - channel contexts are currently > not implemented in ath9k (where I test). The latest patchset works the same > way, although we can change that if you prefer. For the current implementation > (single channel, single vif) it makes no difference, maybe for future implementations. > I don't know if there are any weird corner cases though, and we probably need to > adjust the mac80211 interface too when to report radars on certain channels only > (e.g. extension channel radar). It really just seems strange to me to report radar on all/any other interfaces to userspace. If we leave it up to the drivers, we'll get all kinds of strange behaviour ;-) So it seems better to let mac80211 manage that? 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
