On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:19:38PM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote: > 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. For WDS station, what should be the interface type? Forgive if I'm wrong. > >> 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
