Message-ID: <1454513999.3083.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160203_164013_682678_9F78F70F)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cfg80211: basic support for PBSS network type
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Lior David <liord@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	Dedy Lansky <dlansky@codeaurora.org>,
	Maya Erez <merez@codeaurora.org>,
	Hamad Kadmany <qca_hkadmany@qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:39:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <56B1C740.9020604@codeaurora.org>
References: <56961335.4040801@codeaurora.org>
	 <1453807346.2759.29.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <56A767E4.7090906@codeaurora.org>
	 <1453812869.2759.38.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <56A9D831.7070909@codeaurora.org>
	 <1454425741.2926.7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <1454425840.2926.8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <56B1C740.9020604@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:24 +0200, Lior David wrote:
> 
> On 2/2/2016 5:10 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> ......
> > Actually, one more question: Why does the kernel have to know at
> > *connect* time that it should be a PBSS? It could tell that from
> > the
> > scan results, by looking for PBSS if it can't find AP in there, no?
> > 
> Yes it can be implemented that way. However we wanted user space to
> be able
> to specify exactly whether to connect to an AP or PCP. Since PBSS is
> a separate
> network type and we don't want clients to get an unexpected
> connection to
> a PCP. We also don't want to support roaming between a PCP and AP (it
> is not
> covered by the spec at this time)
> 

ok, fair enough.

johannes