Re: ath10k mesh + ap + encryption?

[Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3543 bytes --]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:25:21 AM CEST Valo, Kalle wrote:
> Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de> writes:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:59:31 AM CEST Valo, Kalle wrote:
> >> Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de> writes:
> >> > we have done some experiments last week on ath10k, trying to run mesh
> >> > (802.11s) and access point at the same time, both encrypted.
> >> > 
> >> > We have tested a recent LEDE (reboot-1519-g42f559e) but with
> >> > firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.70.42-2 and the included wpa_supplicant, which
> >> > gave
> >> > us a working encrypted 802.11s network. However, starting an AP at the
> >> > same time didn't work (AP doesn't beacon). This wasn't a problem when
> >> > 802.11s was running unencrypted.
> >> > 
> >> > We also tested version 10.2.4.97 (from codeaurora), which is now
> >> > default
> >> > in
> >> > LEDE. However, this version apparently doesn't support 11s mesh at all
> >> > (WMI_SERVICE_MESH_11S is disabled in the service map, but cfg/mac80211
> >> > advertises support).
> >> > 
> >> > So here are my questions:
> >> >  * Did anyone succesfully run AP and mesh, both encrypted at the same
> >> >  time?
> >> >  * Do you have any pointers how we could fix this? Could it be fixable
> >> >  in
> >> >  the>
> >> > 
> >> > driver (i.e. not in firmware)?
> >> > 
> >> >  * Does anyone have an idea if 11s will be supported in future
> >> >  versions? I
> >> > 
> >> > didn't find any changelogs, but having 11s mode no longer in the
> >> > service
> >> > map does not make me optimistic.
> >> 
> >> Why is LEDE using 10.2.4.97? It seems to be a quite old release and I
> >> have no knowledge if anyone even tests that firmware branch with ath10k.
> >> I recommend to only use firmware releases from ath10k-firmware.git as we
> >> use those internally with ath10k. In any case, don't make any
> >> assumptions about future from that firmware branch as it's so old.
> > 
> > This was introduced in December 25th, 2015 after some firmware-related
> > problems. I'm CC'ing Martin Blumenstingl who suggested this change.
> > 
> > Since then, ath10k is pulling firmware from here (unless ct firmware is
> > used):
> > 
> > https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/qsdk/oss/firmware/ath10k-firmware/plain
> > /
> > 10.2.4/firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.97-1
> > 
> > However, I don't understand the numbering? 10.2.4.97 > 10.2.4.70, but you
> > say 10.2.4.70.42-2 is more recent? I would have assumed otherwise from
> > the numbers. However, 10.2.4.70 has much more sub-revisions.
> 
> As I said before, I just deliver the firmware files to the community and
> the firmware team creates the actual releases. But my understanding is
> that these are from different branches which are built independently
> (and might have different features, like in this case the mesh support)
> so I would not make any conclusions if any firmware is "better" just
> from the numbers alone.

you are right ... those numbers are not a good pointer. I found this repo, and 
from the checkin dates it looks like 10.2.4.97 is indeed way older (from 
September 2015) than 10.2.4.70.42 (April 2016):

https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/qsdk/oss/firmware/ath10k-firmware/log/10.2.4

I would agree that Changelogs would be helpful.

Thanks for the clarification. We will then stick to the 70's branch then.

Does anyone have pointers for the other questions? :) I would believe hat many 
people would be interested in running AP + Mesh encrypted at the same time (at 
least in the open source community ...).

Thanks,
      Simon

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 146 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k