On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:10 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 05/11/2011 09:48 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 17:58 +0200, BjÃrn Smedman wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > > We can't fail from the drivers, they don't have a failure path. > > Maybe we could treat the beacon interval setting as a requested > value, and give the caller some way to know the actual value > that is used by the hardware? No, not really, the value needs to be in the beacon data. 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
