On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 21:06 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Also my assumption here is that ieee80211_beacon_loss() should be > called only after certain number of consecutive beacon misses. While > testing these patches on stlc45xx I used number 10. Can ath9k handle > anything like this? Or will it just report each beacon miss > individually? Should the number be configurable? The beacon interval might vary so it might be useful to set it so that misses * interval is constant? > I don't see a problem. Like you said, such hardware should have beacon > checksumming support. Whenever the checksum has changed, the hardware > should pass the beacon to the host and mac80211 would receive the > beacon just like without beacon filtering. > > Beacon filtering can be thought like filtering unrelevant beacons, but > passing through the beacons which have new information. For example, > stlc45xx already has beacon checksum support even though it doesn't > support 5 GHz band. Unfortunately I haven't managed to find the time > to test it yet. > > If there is hardware using 5 GHz band and does not support beacon > checksumming, then the driver should not even enable beacon filtering. Should the flag be per-band in that case? Or do we need checksum support anyway? (Actually, we shouldn't call that checksum support, but 'beacon change notification' or something, I guess) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
