Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:35888 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752180AbcGRTfH (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:35:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f126so116100198wma.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cfg80211: Allow differnt beacon interval if driver supports To: Johannes Berg , Purushottam Kushwaha References: <1468849985-6881-1-git-send-email-pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com> <1468868209.2944.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <9831c426-ae04-a85f-9173-bcea30c489d7@broadcom.com> <1468869356.2944.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jouni@qca.qualcomm.com, usdutt@qti.qualcomm.com, ganeshk@qti.qualcomm.com, mkalikot@qca.qualcomm.com, amarnath@qca.qualcomm.com From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20160718_213511_247641_3D523384) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:35:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 18-7-2016 21:21, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 18-7-2016 21:15, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 21:13 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> >>> On 18-7-2016 20:56, Johannes Berg wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 19:23 +0530, Purushottam Kushwaha wrote: >>>>> Driver may allow support for different beacon interval on virtual >>>>> interfaces. >>>>> Allow if such support is advertised by driver. This adds new >>>>> ext_feature as NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_DIFF_BEACON_INTERVAL. >>>> >>>> We have NL80211_IFACE_COMB_STA_AP_BI_MATCH in interface >>>> combinations, >>>> perhaps it would make sense to also put this flag there? >>> >>> Hi Johannes, >>> >>> Was looking at the same thing. The description of that flag was a bit >>> unclear to me. >>> >>> """ >>> * @beacon_int_infra_match: In this combination, the beacon intervals >>> * between infrastructure and AP types must match. This is >>> required >>> * only in special cases. >>> """ >>> >>> It is not explicitly stated but it implies the STA vif is connected, >>> right. >> >> Yes. >> >> Forget this flag. I don't think any driver sets it - it was a hack for >> iwldvm. I also don't think any userspace cares about it, and it likely >> never really worked. What if the STA vif reconnects anyway? Uhm. My memory tells me differently and LXR also [1] :-p Regards, Arend [1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c#L6182