Message-ID: <1380537498.14467.10.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130930_123826_263306_B987D722)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12] mac80211: fix a tx power handling regression
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:38:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <524947C0.7060607@openwrt.org>
References: <1380458883-19862-1-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org>
	 <1380532158.14467.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
	 <524947C0.7060607@openwrt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:43 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 11:09 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 14:48 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> commit 1ea6f9c0d48b11b6ec3ec4b5579ec74fc3951cf8
> >> "mac80211: handle TX power per virtual interface"
> >> 
> >> This commit added support for tracking tx power configuration for
> >> multiple interfaces, however instead of using the maximum value of all
> >> virtual interfaces, it uses the minimum.
> > 
> > I'm not sure it should be using the maximum? What if the AP required
> > lowering TX power by way of TPC for example?
> Shouldn't that only affect the virtual interface that is connected to
> that AP?

Yes, but not all drivers support per-interface TX power I guess?

> If there's a regulatory requirement to use lower tx power, it should be
> tracked as a limit somewhere else instead of implicitly being handled
> via vif tx power configuration.

Not sure I see why? It's an absolute value after we do the calculations
in that interface that has the TPC.

johannes