Manikanta Pubbisetty <mpubbise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 8/16/2018 1:57 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 18:23 +0530, Manikanta Pubbisetty wrote:
>
>
> I don't think that makes sense. If we split the capability of AP_VLAN
> and AP_VLAN_FOR_4ADDR at the "root", then we don't need to play with all
> these things. Yes, this is slightly awkward for userspace, and perhaps
> with the interface combination checks, but I'd like you to look at that.
>
>
>
> I was working on splitting the 4-addr functionality from AP/VLAN iftype;
> I have introduced a new iftype NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_4ADDR and moved the
> 4-addr handling from AP/VLAN to this new iftype. But this approach
> breaks the backward compatibility with older userspace applications.
>
>
> Yeah ...
>
> I'm confused and no longer sure what I was thinking, nor even what we're
> trying to achieve here...
>
> I had introduced a change db3bdcb9c3ff (" mac80211: allow AP_VLAN
> operation on crypto controlled devices ") for supporting VLAN
> functionality on ath10k devices; this commit has broken 4 addr support
> on ath10k devices as I was advertising the AP/VLAN support
> conditionally. Since 4 addr operation is tied to AP/VLAN support, with
> this change, only the chips which support VLAN functionality can
> support 4 addr operation but other ath10k chips don't.
Manikanta, please set up your Thunderbird so that it uses the standard
'>' quotation style. This mail is impossible to read as I don't know
which part is written by you and which part by Johannes.
--
Kalle Valo
