Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:33065 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933601Ab2FBSPB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:15:01 -0400 Received: by wibhm6 with SMTP id hm6so1385511wib.1 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1338659135.12823.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1338532779-4621-1-git-send-email-mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com> <1338533070.4884.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4FC86AB4.9020602@qca.qualcomm.com> <1338534832.4884.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4FCA30DE.4080805@qca.qualcomm.com> <1338659135.12823.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: Guido Iribarren Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:14:39 -0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120602_201535_765815_95E30E50) Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath9k: Fix a WARNING in suspend/resume with IBSS To: Johannes Berg Cc: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , stable@vger.kernel.org, Rodriguez Luis , ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, Rajkumar Manoharan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > The sets are mutually exclusive, and there are implied sets of each > interface with a max number of 1. So for example, in iwlwifi we don't > advertise IBSS in the combinations at all, because it's not compatible > with anything. In your case, I think the same applies, since you said > >        if the first interface is ADHOC we cannot have any other >        interface. we cannot add an ADHOC interface if there is already >        an interface is present I've been following the thread and still can't get this confusion out of my head: i'm currently using kernel 3.3.2 (openwrt trunk r31439), with Atheros AR9285 and i can succesfully combine IBSS interface with AP or STA modes... # iw dev phy#0 Interface wlan0-1 ifindex 11 type AP Interface wlan0-2 ifindex 10 type IBSS Interface wlan0 ifindex 9 type AP So, does this patch mean this functionality will be lost in future versions of ath9k? or maybe it is officially unsupported and openwrt has patches applied? or, even worse, I completely misunderstood what you're talking about? (in that case i'm sorry for the noise) Thanks a lot, Guido