Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([46.4.11.11]:42510 "EHLO nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964796Ab2FBSbD (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:31:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4FCA5BCE.8080104@openwrt.org> (sfid-20120602_203133_957012_0F02A059) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:30:38 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guido Iribarren CC: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , Rodriguez Luis , ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan , Rajkumar Manoharan Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath9k: Fix a WARNING in suspend/resume with IBSS 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2012-06-02 8:14 PM, Guido Iribarren wrote: > 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) It's officially unsupported, OpenWrt has patches to enable it. - Felix