On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 11:26 +0200, Luca Coelho wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 08:07 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Steve deRosier <derosier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > On 02/14/2018 03:30 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:55 +0000, Mickaël PANNEQUIN wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you know the limit of the number of users connected at > > > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > time on the wifi? Works fine with 14 connected devices but > > > > > > not more. > > > > > > > > > > > > How to increase it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't. > > > > > > > > > > > This limit is hardware? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More or less, yes. The HW/FW can support 16 STAs, but needs > > > > > two > > > > > for > > > > > other bookkeeping. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a general question, is there a standard way to determine > > > > this > > > > limit for > > > > any particular hardware? > > > > > > > > > Yes, but there's no easy way. Put it in AP mode and connect > > > clients > > > to > > > it until it starts rejecting new clients or dropping the old > > > ones. > > > Usually while watching it with a sniffer. That's how I've always > > > had > > > to do it. > > > > > > Different chips will have different limits, and there's no > > > reliable > > > way to determine the limit across all chips other than trial and > > > error. It seems a common desire of people to try to use client > > > chips > > > as poor-man APs. While it will work for very limited number of > > > clients, they're not intended as AP chips. If you want something > > > to > > > work as an AP, I recommend you choose an AP chip. > > > > We do have wiphy::max_ap_assoc_sta, but I see only ath10k, qtnfmac > > and > > rsi_91x setting it. I wish all drivers would use that. > > > > * @max_ap_assoc_sta: maximum number of associated stations > > supported in AP mode > > * (including P2P GO) or 0 to indicate no such limit is advertised. > > The > > * driver is allowed to advertise a theoretical limit that it can > > reach in > > * some cases, but may not always reach. > > Cool, I hadn't noticed this before. I'll add a patch to iwlwifi to > add it. Actually this is not so straightforward, because every time we add a p2p vif, we lose one more station. So the max_ap_assoc_sta value must be dynamic (or we can state the theoretical lowest number to start with, which would not be very nice). I don't think this feature is worth the trouble, so I'll skip it for now. -- Cheers, Luca.
