On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:17 -0700, Paul Stewart wrote: > >> I still think this might be too heavyweight in situations where the >> firmware handles TDLS links. Think about a system where the firmware >> is completely responsible for terminating incoming TDLS requests and >> offers no facility to notify the kernel as the TDLS link (initiated >> remotely) was established. > > Is it really that bad to demand the firmware notify the host? It's not > like this is a very frequent event, and if querying is supported then > notification can't be all that much more difficult. I think firmware vendors are coming to the point of view that they must minimize host processor wakeups. They may argue from that perspective that the firmware should divulge such information only on request. > We're not in a great position to demand that upstream, I guess, it > should be easier for you :-) > > If it's really such a big problem, in theory one could support > get_station() (which gives you a MAC address) and not dump_station(). I > wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but it does seem possible. > Okay. I suppose I can shelve this until I can ask for firmware changes to support this pattern. I'm not sure I'll get it, though, and I'm doubtful whether that's a tenable path for others. -- 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
