On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 23:05 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Johannes Berg >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> 1. in register_hw it honors value requested by the driver >> > >> > I don't think the driver should be able to "request" a value. >> >> Yes and no. >> The problem is that we don't have user space interface to tune this >> for IBSS so in this circumstances >> driver can choose what value is best for it. > > I don't see how the beacon interval has any relation to "what is best > for the hardware/driver". Usually this affect power management if implemented. And doing this just creates hard to debug > differences between drivers. All differences between different drivers > are causing problems at some point. Get assimilated :) > Wrt. configurability, yes, we should maybe allow this. Although it's > only used for IBSS (in BSS it is configurable already) You mean probably AP What should be the proper interface sysfs or iw(nl) ? >so I'm not > entirely sure... users are probably not able to make an informed > decision anyway. Are you talking about Linux users ? :). Usually vendors take such decisions. > >> >> 2. It uses default 100 instead of 1000 or 10000. Scanning for beacon >> >> interval ~1sec and above is not sane >> > >> > Yeah, 10000 seems a bit excessive. >> >> Actually this never took affect as there is no way that 0 is assigned >> to hw->conf.beacon_int but even 1000 is edgy and not suitable for a >> default value. > > Sure, I'm fine with changing both values to 100. Good. Tomas -- 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
