On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 09:46 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 05/09/2011 09:41 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >> > From: Johannes Berg<johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Multiple virtual AP interfaces can currently try >> > to use different beacon intervals, but that just >> > leads to problems since it won't actually be done >> > that way by drivers. Return an error in this case >> > to make sure it won't be done wrong. >> >> I think there is no problem with having different beacon >> intervals, as long as they are all a multiple of >> the smallest interval and the driver does things properly. >> >> I'm not sure ath9k or ath5k currently supports this properly, >> but there was a patch floating around for a while that did >> this for ath9k I think... > > Yes, in theory that's possible, but apparently no driver actually did > this correctly. Also, it didn't seem like anyone really cares, and we > need to enforce some restrictions because otherwise drivers will end up > doing it wrong, and you'll end up having a beacon interval of 200 while > advertising 150 for example, which will totally throw off powersaving > clients. I'm very interested in having multiple AP vifs with different beacon intervals. If we're going to just fail anyway in this case can't we do that from the drivers instead? I would also prefer that from an aesthetic point of view, instead of having broken logic in the drivers "protected" by extra verification in cfg80211. Best regards, Björn -- 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
