On 2011-01-13 5:35 PM, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:53:27PM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2011-01-13 6:18 AM, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:21:47AM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2011-01-12 10:06 AM, Björn Smedman wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Rajkumar Manoharan
>> > <rmanoharan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> The commit ""ath9k: Add change_interface callback" was failed
>> >> to update of hw opmode, ani and interrupt mask. This leads
>> >> to break p2p functionality on ath9k. And the existing add and
>> >> remove interface functions are not handling hw opmode and
>> >> ANI properly.
>> >>
>> >> This patch combines the common code in interface callbacks
>> >> and also takes care of multi-vif cases.
>> >
>> > How does your patch handle the race condition between the interface
>> > change done in process context and the beacon tasklet triggered by
>> > SWBA?
>> >
>> > Also, perhaps more applicable to the commit log than the patch, how
>> > can opmode be properly handled in multi-vif cases? I mean let's say I
>> > have two AP vifs and then change one into STA, is the opmode then STA?
>> > Compare that to the case where I have two STA vifs and change one into
>> > AP; so again I have one AP and one STA vif but this time opmode is AP,
>> > right? I can see how I can be wrong about these examples but I can't
>> > really see how the opmode concept can be properly handled in multi-vif
>> > cases.
>> I think opmode should be handled as follows:
>> If there is at least one AP interface, opmode should be AP, regardless
>> of what the other interfaces are set to.
>> If there is no AP vif, opmode can be set to the primary vif type.
>>
> Correct. this RFC patch does the same.
Really? I don't see that being handled properly, it still seems to
overwrite ah->opmode based on a single vif type for some types.
Also, there is no reason to have a WDS opmode in ath9k_hw. WDS is
typically used along with AP mode interfaces, and where it is not, the
AP opmode should be used for ath9k_hw anyway.
Instead of setting opmde as AP for WDS, it is better to handle WDS
case in ath9k_hw.
Why? Right now I don't even see any NL80211_IFTYPE_WDS handling in
ath9k_hw, and I can't think of anything that should be handled
differently in ath9k_hw compared to the AP opmode.
Maybe it would be a good idea to clean this up and first limit the
number of different types that we pass to ath9k_hw (i.e. only AP, ADHOC,
STA). Later we can make a separate enum for that to avoid passing the
type as-is entirely.
Just to stick with the currently supported interfaces list, WDS also included.
I think the mesh point opmode has no place in ath9k_hw. Right now it is
treated like ad-hoc, but I think that's completely wrong. Mesh should
behave just like AP mode, as no ad-hoc style TSF synchronization should
be done by the hardware, and 802.11s mesh nodes do not compete for
beacon transmission.
This is a different issue and it has to be addressed in separate patch.
I agree.
- Felix
--
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
