Simon Wunderlich <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:59:31 AM CEST Valo, Kalle wrote: >> Simon Wunderlich <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > we have done some experiments last week on ath10k, trying to run mesh >> > (802.11s) and access point at the same time, both encrypted. >> > >> > We have tested a recent LEDE (reboot-1519-g42f559e) but with >> > firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.70.42-2 and the included wpa_supplicant, which gave >> > us a working encrypted 802.11s network. However, starting an AP at the >> > same time didn't work (AP doesn't beacon). This wasn't a problem when >> > 802.11s was running unencrypted. >> > >> > We also tested version 10.2.4.97 (from codeaurora), which is now default >> > in >> > LEDE. However, this version apparently doesn't support 11s mesh at all >> > (WMI_SERVICE_MESH_11S is disabled in the service map, but cfg/mac80211 >> > advertises support). >> > >> > So here are my questions: >> > * Did anyone succesfully run AP and mesh, both encrypted at the same >> > time? >> > * Do you have any pointers how we could fix this? Could it be fixable in >> > the> >> > driver (i.e. not in firmware)? >> > >> > * Does anyone have an idea if 11s will be supported in future versions? I >> > >> > didn't find any changelogs, but having 11s mode no longer in the service >> > map does not make me optimistic. >> >> Why is LEDE using 10.2.4.97? It seems to be a quite old release and I >> have no knowledge if anyone even tests that firmware branch with ath10k. >> I recommend to only use firmware releases from ath10k-firmware.git as we >> use those internally with ath10k. In any case, don't make any >> assumptions about future from that firmware branch as it's so old. > > This was introduced in December 25th, 2015 after some firmware-related > problems. I'm CC'ing Martin Blumenstingl who suggested this change. > > Since then, ath10k is pulling firmware from here (unless ct firmware is used): > > https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/qsdk/oss/firmware/ath10k-firmware/plain/ > 10.2.4/firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.97-1 > > However, I don't understand the numbering? 10.2.4.97 > 10.2.4.70, but you say > 10.2.4.70.42-2 is more recent? I would have assumed otherwise from the > numbers. However, 10.2.4.70 has much more sub-revisions. As I said before, I just deliver the firmware files to the community and the firmware team creates the actual releases. But my understanding is that these are from different branches which are built independently (and might have different features, like in this case the mesh support) so I would not make any conclusions if any firmware is "better" just from the numbers alone. -- Kalle Valo
