Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 11:50:50AM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mshajakhan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > * Preventing association with broken AP's >> >> How can different dtim value cause problems with association? Power >> save should not be even enabled during association. Or do you mean >> there are problems after association, for example during eap >> negotation? > > It is not the DTIM value, it is the part of having to receive a Beacon > frame before even trying to associate. This is very much a corner case, > but well, that behavior did change with the commit. [...] > The real issue (as far as I can tell) was that ath9k was changed to > require mac80211 to get it DTIM period before association. I'm not aware > of any need for that with ath9k. It should have no problems updating PS > parameters after association and as such, should not require mac80211 to > figure DTIM period out before being able to associate. This change is > not about hardcoding DTIM period; it is about removing unneeded change > that added extra latency without any real gain. Ah, sorry. I misunderstood the case here then. I have a feeling ath9k consumes quite a lot of power already, even when I use dtim 10, and I was worried if ath9k power consumption even increases more :) -- Kalle Valo -- 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
