2011/5/11 Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 17:58 +0200, Björn 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. Wouldn't it be best to add a failure path? Based a quick look it seems a little complicated but not unmanageable... Or what do you think? Is there anything else where the driver may not support a certain combination of bss configurations? From the top of my head I can think of mac address. That should fail as well depending on HW capability, right? That seems to be another code path but the same problem (no failure path). /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
