Hi, On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:21 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sun, 15 Jan 2023 20:54:02 -0500: > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 6:33 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Scanning being now supported, we can eg. play with hwsim to verify > > > everything works as soon as this series including beaconing support gets > > > merged. > > > > > > > I am not sure if a beacon send should be handled by an mlme helper > > handling as this is a different use-case and the user does not trigger > > an mac command and is waiting for some reply and a more complex > > handling could be involved. There is also no need for hotpath xmit > > handling is disabled during this time. It is just an async messaging > > in some interval and just "try" to send it and don't care if it fails, > > or? For mac802154 therefore I think we should use the dev_queue_xmit() > > function to queue it up to send it through the hotpath? > > > > I can ack those patches, it will work as well. But I think we should > > switch at some point to dev_queue_xmit(). It should be simple to > > switch it. Just want to mention there is a difference which will be > > there in mac-cmds like association. > > I see what you mean. That's indeed true, we might just switch to > a less constrained transmit path. > I would define the difference in bypass qdisc or not. Whereas the qdisc can drop or delay transmitting... For me, the qdisc is currently in a "works for now" state. > In practice, what is deliberately "not enough" here is the precision > when sending the beacons, eg. for ranging purposes (UWB) we will need > to send the beacons at a strict pace. But there are two ways for doing > that : > - use a dedicated scheduler (not supported yet) > - move this logic into a firmware, within an embedded controller on the > PHY > then bypassing qdisc would be better. > But that is something that we will have to sort out later on. For now, > let's KISS. > > > btw: what is about security handling... however I would declare this > > feature as experimental anyway. > > I haven't tested the security layer at all yet, would you have a few > commands to start with, which I could try using eg. hwsim? hwsim should work. But again don't trust the transmit side, there are currently problems. Wireshark has also a feature to give the key and encrypt on the fly for 802.15.4. - Alex
