Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:4553 "EHLO mms3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932403Ab3E0N42 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2013 09:56:28 -0400 Message-ID: <51A36603.7020403@broadcom.com> (sfid-20130527_155631_873413_1F938474) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:56:19 +0200 From: "Arend van Spriel" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Johannes Berg" cc: "Jouni Malinen" , "hostap@lists.shmoo.com" , linux-wireless , "Jithu Jance" Subject: Re: P2P Device support: how to deal with p2p_no_group_iface option References: <51A09F43.5030004@broadcom.com> <1369645418.8229.17.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1369645418.8229.17.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/27/2013 11:03 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > >> I looked into issues around hwsim p2p tests and got all but one p2p test >> passing now (test_autogo_tdls). I had to remove the p2p_no_group_iface >> option from the p2px.conf files, because otherwise it tries to change >> the P2P management interface into a P2P group interface. When using >> P2P_DEVICE and P2P management interface this is not allowed by >> mac80211_hwsim. Also for brcmfmac the P2P_DEVICE interface is dedicated >> and can only be added/deleted, but not changed. Not sure if that is true >> for iwlmvm as well. >> >> So I would like to discuss how to deal with the p2p_no_group_iface >> option. As P2P_DEVICE is a new concept the name of the option may no >> longer match what it intends. Is the option to force all P2P operations >> to be done on a single interface, ie. wlan0 (or whatever is specified on >> the command line) and no P2P_DEVICE is to be created. Or should it >> change the interface from the command line as P2P group interface. > > I don't think I'd do either of those. Not creating P2P_DEVICE will > simply not work with drivers expecting it, and changing iftype to/from > P2P-Device isn't supported since it would delete/create the netdev. So should we check that in cfg80211 upon wiphy_register(). > I don't really see much choice but reject (or ignore) this option for > drivers using P2P_DEVICE. Why would anyone *really* want P2P operation > on wlan0 when another interface can be used? In this mac80211_hwsim is a special case. We could make P2P_DEVICE support in mac80211_hwsim optional using module parameter to allow testing both cases. Regards, Arend