On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:06 +0300, Juuso Oikarinen wrote: > Hello Johannes, hello all, > > As you may know the wl1271 hardware implements WLAN-Bluetooth > co-existence by toggling a single antenna between WLAN and Bluetooth. > > To pull this off, several quirks are required, for instance WLAN must be > forced to full-PSM so that antenna-time for BT can be made available. > This is implemented by the wl1271 driver with the help of the mac80211. > > There are lots of timing issues involved, and there is a priority > between WLAN an BT. To ensure BT A2DP and SCO work properly, BT needs to > have enough priority at the expense of WLAN performance. While this > works well enough when connected, during WLAN association and especially > during EAP negotiation the priority needs to be more on the WLAN side to > ensure reliability. > > The wl1271 driver starts association with the priority on WLAN, which > means that BT performance is compromised. The wl1271 driver should > change the priority to BT after association and the EAP negotiations are > complete, to make sure BT is performing acceptably. > > So, what this all boils down to is that the wl1271 driver needs to know > when the association, including the possible EAP negotations are fully > complete, to be able to adjust the priority. > > Currently, there is no such information available to the driver. In fact > this information is not available anywhere in the kernel level either > (as the details of the EAP negotiation, needed keys etc are controlled > in user-space), so the trigger would need to come from user-space. > > To enable this, an operand would be needed to nl80211 to indicate > completion of association (including the EAP negotiations.) > Corresponding functions would then be needed on the cfg80211 ops and > mac80211 ops. > > User-space would then call the operand when association is complete. For > open/WEP AP's the operand would be called immediately after association, > and for WPA AP's the operand would be called once the EAP negotiations > are complete. > > > Thoughts? Ideas? Would this be acceptable? I really don't like this. You _can_ figure out if a given frame is EAP by looking at its ethertype (but don't implement WAPI then!) ... can't you just give it priority _by frame_? Also, it doesn't make any sense, since if you really care then you want rekeying to also have priority... johannes -- 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
