[ath9k-devel] vifs managementRe

["\"Lorna González\"" <lorna.glez@gmx.net>]

Hi Joao, 

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:33:27 +0000
> From: Jo?o Maur?cio <joao.goncalves.mauricio@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] vifs management
> To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
> Cc: ath9k-devel at venema.h4ckr.net, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se>
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikMD0OgvcZJAV54aYsdDq_NyQm2+XJ8=6KN76Zd@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> After some testing, I've got the some results as before: when I issue the
> "echo add > ... wiphy" command while I'm associated with some AP on wlan0,
> I
> get deassociated after a few seconds. Also, no interface can get
> associated
> before I issue "echo del=phy ... wiphy" until I've just my primary
> interface. Long story short, I can't make wiphys work. Any thoughts?

Based on my own experience working with phys and vifs. Their functionality depend also on the kernel you are using. In my case, I always need to associate phy0 before creating a new phy, otherwise I can not get an association. Try using other kernel version and power save off for example. 


> What's the real difference between creating wlan0, wlan1, ... wlanN
> "based"
> on phy0, phy1... phyN and wlan0, wlan1, ..., wlanN always "based" on
> phy0??

> Thanks
> 
> 2010/11/4 Jo?o Maur?cio <joao.goncalves.mauricio@gmail.com>
> 
> >  My method assumes that all your stations will be on the same
> >> frequency.  When that is the case, two different VIFS can communicate
> >> to two different APs concurrently.  You do not have to play any
> >> special tricks.
> >>
> >> If you want your VIFs to function on different channels, then you
> >> are going to have to attempt virtual wiphys probably..and my initial
> >> attempt at using them went poorly.

In my opinion, the answer above describes the difference of wlan0...wlanN and phy0...phyN. Vifs are created on mac80211 and phys on your SoftMAC driver. 
You can also read following

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/29500

good luck

Lorna Glez. 



> > Ok, I'll try again to make it work with virtual wiphys and report the
> > outcome later. Shouldn't it be "straightforward" with just 2 virtual
> > interfaces?? Is there any known major issues (my NIC's chipset is the
> > ar9285)?
> >
> > A log with a successful attempt would be marvelous.
> >
> > Thanks
> >


-- 
GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 &euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit 
gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl