Hi Stefan, stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 3 Jan 2023 20:43:02 +0100: > Hello Miquel. > > On 03.01.23 17:56, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We now have the infrastructure to report beacons/PANs, we also have the > > capability to transmit MLME commands synchronously. It is time to use > > these to implement a proper scan implementation. > > > > There are a few side-changes which are necessary for the soft MAC scan > > implementation to compile/work, but nothing big. The two main changes > > are: > > * The introduction of a user API for managing scans. > > * The soft MAC implementation of a scan. > > > > In all the past, current and future submissions, David and Romuald from > > Qorvo are credited in various ways (main author, co-author, > > suggested-by) depending of the amount of rework that was involved on > > each patch, reflecting as much as possible the open-source guidelines we > > follow in the kernel. All this effort is made possible thanks to Qorvo > > Inc which is pushing towards a featureful upstream WPAN support. > > > > Example of output: > > > > # iwpan monitor > > coord1 (phy #1): scan started > > coord1 (phy #1): beacon received: PAN 0xabcd, addr 0xb2bcc36ac5570abe > > coord1 (phy #1): scan finished > > coord1 (phy #1): scan started > > coord1 (phy #1): scan aborted > > These patches have been applied to the wpan-next tree and will be > part of the next pull request to net-next. Thanks! > > Before I would add them to a pull request to net-next I would like to have an updated patchset for iwpan to reflect these scan changes. We would need something to verify the kernel changes and try to coordinate a new iwpan release with this functionality with the major kernel release bringing the feature. So far I did not made a single change for the scan, but a common changeset for scan+beaconing (which I am about to send), should I split it or should we assume we could introduce scanning and beaconing in the same kernel release? Thanks, Miquèl
