On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > Yes, since 0 is nonsensical, we would use 1 instead. >> >> OK -- it seems we have a consensus waiting for a beacon would be good, >> but it would be good to have something in for stable. Is the patch Guy >> posted acceptable for that purpose? That is, merge this for now until >> we get beacon wait implemented prior to association. > > Not sure we even need it in stable that badly? It seems it only hurts > power consumption Good point, we'd just be waking up at every beacon if power save is enabled since the default is indeed 1. > somewhat. Depends how common this is. I am not sure what the usual DTIM value is either though, but if its not 1 and this is indeed very common that'd be a bit sloppy for stable. > And I just implemented waiting today too. I saw, you're the fucking man. > Although Bob has a point, we could change the way we pass the DTIM > period to the driver, only pass it in the powersave callbacks, and then > we could associate without it and just enable powersave only after > receiving a beacon. That assumes that drivers don't use it for anything > else though, of course, but I don't see anything else you could use it > for really. Neat -- but that would mean doing the same for other beacon-sync IE information. What other stuff goes out in beacons that does not go into probe responses? I think I read a thread the other day about some WPS information. Luis -- 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
