[ath9k-devel] vifs management

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 11/01/2010 11:38 AM, Jo?o Maur?cio wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is the creation of multiple virtual
> interfaces (to use as stations) where I can control which interface is
> able to transmit (sending the rest of them into PS mode) at each time
> (explicitly or using a scheduler). That said and from what I've been
> playing, correct me if I'm wrong, the best way to do it is to use the
> "echo add > /.../wiphy" mechanism. However, I wasn't able to make it
> work, every time that I create a new interface, none of them (the
> "original" and the virtual) can get associated with the AP (I already
> played around with the pause, unpause, select, etc..). On the other
> hand, with the "iw wlan0 interface add ... type managed" feature,
> everything seems to work fine, except that I don't know how to "control"
> the interfaces transmission timings.
>
> With this in mind, some questions arise:
>
> - Is there anyone out there that can successfully do what I'm trying to
> accomplish or that is a "master" using the wiphy mechanism, that can
> point me the right direction?? (I really can't figure if I'm doing
> something wrong, or if it's my ar9285 chipset problem)
>
> - What's the difference between having two interfaces, wlan0 and wlan1,
> "linked" to phy0 ("interface add" way) and having wlan0 "linked" to phy0
> and wlan1 to phy1 (wiphy way)?
>
> - Is it possible to have my desired level of control over the virtual
> interfaces, using the "iw wlan0 interface add ... type managed"?

Don't use virtual wiphys if you can help it..it doesn't scale as well
and has some fundamental issues with scheduling physical resources,
and there are ongoing comments about removing this code someday 'soon'.

We have had good luck (assuming you are running the latest code +
the tx-side locking that is yet to make it into wireless-testing)
with creating and using lots of virtual stations on a single
phy.

We are actually disabling PS as that was previously suggested
it might cause problems with multiple interfaces.

Maybe you can explain a bit more about what you are trying to
accomplish with the power-save logic?

Thanks,
Ben

>
> Thanks,
>
> Jo?o Maur?cio
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com