Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <e3d7cb8b891d1a54ffea60b5f8257208e03129d3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: Add support for sending BSSMaxIdle in association
 request
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Krishna Chaitanya <chaitanya.mgit@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:41:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CABPxzY+_2DEK-wfAr1V9z1iHZky-7vF24mQx2yFgtFUoTdWgmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230719194039.16179-1-Chaitanya.Tata@nordicsemi.no>
         <2307e1741e9d32e8f1ffc4e83c73b63a4e32512b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <CABPxzYJvAtgbrr_v6cMuKwFjzRjYOCDota+koYp-iogtJS75HQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <CABPxzY+_2DEK-wfAr1V9z1iHZky-7vF24mQx2yFgtFUoTdWgmw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 00:17 +0530, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:05=E2=80=AFAM Krishna Chaitanya
> <chaitanya.mgit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:43=E2=80=AFPM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolut=
ions.net> wrote:
> > >=20
> > > On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 01:10 +0530, Chaitanya Tata wrote:
> > > > When WNM is enabled, a station can send its preferred BSS maximum i=
dle
> > > > period in the association request, add a new netlink attribute to g=
et
> > > > this value from the supplicant and add BSS maximum idle IE in the
> > > > association request.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I don't see anything here that even requires all this code, rather th=
an
> > > wpa_s just including the element itself in the association request ex=
tra
> > > IEs?
> > Yeah, WPA supplicant can prepare this, please ignore, thanks.

> Just remembered why I had to implement this in kernel, the associate/conn=
ect
> data structure in wpa_s `wpa_driver_associate_params` doesn't have any
> ies/extra_ies, it only gives wpa_ie and rest all are parameters for mac80=
211
> to use. So, had just extended this as well, do you think we should add
> this ies/extra_ies
> to the association like we do for scan? Or as MLME is in mac80211,
> just use this patch as is?

Not sure I follow all that reasoning - is that something internal to
wpa_supplicant? Fundamentally with my cfg/mac hat on I'm not sure I care
so much about wpa_s internal data structures?

Things like extended capabilities are also added to the "extra IEs" by
wpa_s, so surely this would work too?

johannes