On 04/07/2015 09:33 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 10:17 PM, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
>> On 7 April 2015 at 07:12, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 7 April 2015 at 02:39, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone tried running ath10k to ath9k IBSS?
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying this with a somewhat hacked 4.0-rc6 kernel,
>>>> and latest wpa_supplicant.
>>>>
>>>> ath9k to ath9k works with and without encryption, and ath10k to ath10k works
>>>> (w/out encryption at least).
>>>>
>>>> But, if I try to tell ath10k to connect to ath9k, then the ath9k reports
>>>> interface combinations
>>>> issues and will not associate. I've added some debug, and the issue is the
>>>> 'num==0' part here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> int cfg80211_check_combinations(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>>>> const int num_different_channels,
>>>> const u8 radar_detect,
>>>> const int iftype_num[NUM_NL80211_IFTYPES])
>>>> {
>>>> int err, num = 0;
>>>>
>>>> err = cfg80211_iter_combinations(wiphy, num_different_channels,
>>>> radar_detect, iftype_num,
>>>> cfg80211_iter_sum_ifcombs, &num);
>>>> if (err) {
>>>> pr_info("cfg-comb-check: failed to iterate combinations\n");
>>>> return err;
>>>> }
>>>> if (num == 0) {
>>>> pr_info("cfg-comb-check: iter-combinations returned
>>>> num==0\n");
>>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfg80211_check_combinations);
>>>>
>>>> There should be exactly one interface on this radio that is admin-up, and it
>>>> is the
>>>> one that I am trying to make run in adhoc mode.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas on this?
>>>
>>> IBSS with non-fixed or dfs channel? It would bump
>>> num_different_channels and yield no valid combinations. But why would
>>> that work fine with, e.g. ath9k-ath9k otherwise - no idea.
>>>
>>
>> Check this discussion (ibss + p2p_device - this could be one you hit).
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg134447.html
>
> That patch is in my tree already, so must be something else.
First, I was wrong...I have some bug (or maybe user-error) and
I had 2 VAP running on this radio when I did not think they were
running.
The combination check is failing because this check below is failing for the third set of combinations:
int cfg80211_iter_combinations(struct wiphy *wiphy,
const int num_different_channels,
const u8 radar_detect,
const int iftype_num[NUM_NL80211_IFTYPES],
void (*iter)(const struct ieee80211_iface_combination *c,
void *data),
void *data)
.....
if (num_interfaces > c->max_interfaces) {
pr_info("%i: iter-comb, num > max: %d > %d\n",
i, num_interfaces, c->max_interfaces);
continue;
}
In my case, num_interfaces is 3 here when I get to i == 2.
'iw phy wiphy1 info' has this:
valid interface combinations:
* #{ managed } <= 2048, #{ AP, mesh point } <= 8, #{ P2P-client, P2P-GO } <= 1,
total <= 2048, #channels <= 1, STA/AP BI must match
* #{ WDS } <= 2048,
total <= 2048, #channels <= 1, STA/AP BI must match
* #{ IBSS, AP, mesh point } <= 1,
total <= 1, #channels <= 1, STA/AP BI must match, radar detect widths: { 20 MHz (no HT), 20 MHz }
For the third set, why limit to a single interface. Can't we run IBSS + AP
(and plus stations, for that matter), all at the same time with ath9k?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
