From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis R. Rodriguez Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:12:08 -0700 Subject: [ath9k-devel] AR9280 Force 5ghz or disable 2.4ghz? In-Reply-To: <1269655360.13004.6.camel@jm-laptop> References: <54422b041003201419w47cf9f8fkf3c29a1eea2e2885@mail.gmail.com> <1269186067.32598.6.camel@jm-laptop> <54422b041003210922y1e199d27q39bf1c938658b38@mail.gmail.com> <1269192508.1261.26.camel@jm-laptop> <54422b041003221619s5e7e921cm61340a8794bc1d83@mail.gmail.com> <54422b041003232254g7f945052o168309cdbeea77ac@mail.gmail.com> <1269645419.8534.100.camel@mj> <1269655360.13004.6.camel@jm-laptop> Message-ID: <20100327021208.GC12311@tux> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:02:40PM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 16:16 -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > I confirm that scan_freq is accepted by the current wpa_supplicant but > > has no reliable effect. Both ath5k and ath9k connected to an AP on the > > channel 6 when "scan_freq=2412" was in the configuration file. > > scan_freq is not supposed to limit the association to specific channels; > it is only to limit scan requests made by wpa_supplicant. You may still > find BSSes on other channels either due to scan requests made by other > programs or by receiving Beacon/Probe Response frames on another > channel. > > If there is interest for limiting the association to specific channels, > it should be trivial addition to wpa_supplicant (with nl80211). I don't > know whether I would fully agree on this being a useful thing for > general use, but I can understand it at least as a testing tool (which > people may then misuse for other things ;-). We could add a new command to disable a channel. That would take care of custom channel configurations. Luis