On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 14:46 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:41:06AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I suspect that SET_POWERSAVE might be confusing. > > Why? Isn't the use case here very similar to the existing station mode > use of power save even if the power saving mechanism is more of a vendor > specific extension that applies while there are no associated stations? Yeah, true, fair point. However, set-powersave is a bit of a legacy API with state in the kernel, and sometimes restrictions on how/when you can set it etc. I'm not sure it's a good idea for those reasons alone? > > Perhaps just with an attribute used in START_AP (and CHANGE_BEACON if > > needed) would be sufficient? > > NL80211_CMD_START_AP with a new attribute (or even re-use of > NL80211_ATTR_PS_STATE) might work for a case where this does not need to > be changed dynamically during the lifetime of the BSS. > NL80211_CMD_SET_BEACON (which maps to the change_beacon() callback) > feels like something that is currently limited to Beacon data updates > with its use of struct cfg80211_beacon_data instead of struct > cfg80211_ap_settings.. > > That SET_BEACON name is still from the old NEW/SET/DEL_BEACON time. > Should that be renamed to NL80211_CMD_UPDATE_AP if we extend this to > changes that are not really targeting the Beacon frame payload itself? I'd be surprised if we don't already have non-beacon state there ... but it looks like only very little non-beacon state, namely the FTM responder state. Renaming seems reasonable, we've done it before with START_AP. > And should the cfg80211_beacon_data argument be replaced with > cfg80211_ap_settings? It looks like we already have some struct > cfg80211_ap_settings values like inactivity_timeout and beacon_rate (and > maybe some HE parameters?) that one might want to update during the > lifetime of the BSS.. That also seems reasonable. johannes
