Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > On 11/10/2013 06:26 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > That's better than not associating at all, ever. > > No because it would break the driver against all the working APs which > are fortunately enough more common. Maybe you can rewrite mac80211 / > iwlwifi to make things work differently so that PS would still work with > good APs and association would work with yours. Fair enough. Go ahead. Challenge accepted: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/290256 > > Wouldn't it make sense to timeout if there's no DTIM, and still > > associate? It's better than not associating ever. Plus, if you already > > know that power saving wouldn't work in this case, merely disable > > powersave. > > I can't wait for your patch. Good, because I already sent it. With my patch if the AP sends the beacon correctly; power saving is enabled, if not, association still works, but power saving is disabled. How you could not imagine such patch is beyond me. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
