[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[gtolon at inti.gob.ar]

Hi

We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw  
utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.  
When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message  
appears. Thank you in advance.

gtlcm

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[Pavel Roskin]

On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
> appears. Thank you in advance.

This limitation is intentional.  The driver doesn't support more than 
one ad-hoc interface.  From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:

if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
     ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
      sc->nvifs > 0)) {
         ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
                 " interfaces already exist.\n");
         ret = -EINVAL;
         goto out;
}

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[Adrian Chadd]

Is there a wiki page which describes why, in a way that normal users
can (hopefully) understand?

(I think I understand why, but I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near
user-facing documentation.)



Adrian

On 24 June 2011 05:20, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
>> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
>> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
>> appears. Thank you in advance.
>
> This limitation is intentional. ?The driver doesn't support more than
> one ad-hoc interface. ?From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:
>
> if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
> ? ? ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
> ? ? ?sc->nvifs > 0)) {
> ? ? ? ? ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " interfaces already exist.\n");
> ? ? ? ? ret = -EINVAL;
> ? ? ? ? goto out;
> }
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Is there a wiki page which describes why, in a way that normal users
> can (hopefully) understand?
>
> (I think I understand why, but I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near
> user-facing documentation.)

Hi Adrian,

I heard that it is because of the TSF problem we can't have any other
interface with an Ad-hoc interface(with inputs from Vasanth).
you have any other thoughts.

>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On 24 June 2011 05:20, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
>>> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
>>> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
>>> appears. Thank you in advance.
>>
>> This limitation is intentional. ?The driver doesn't support more than
>> one ad-hoc interface. ?From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:
>>
>> if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>> ? ? ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
>> ? ? ?sc->nvifs > 0)) {
>> ? ? ? ? ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " interfaces already exist.\n");
>> ? ? ? ? ret = -EINVAL;
>> ? ? ? ? goto out;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Pavel Roskin
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>



-- 
shafi

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 June 2011 13:18, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@gmail.com> wrote:

> I heard that it is because of the TSF problem we can't have any other
> interface with an Ad-hoc interface(with inputs from Vasanth).
> you have any other thoughts.

I've not done much digging in this area yet, so I'm not sure whether
you could possibly keep multiple adhoc TSFs in sync.

Felix likely knows better than I.


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[gaston]

> On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
>> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
>> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
>> appears. Thank you in advance.
>
> This limitation is intentional.  The driver doesn't support more than 
> one ad-hoc interface.  From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:
>
> if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>     ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
>      sc->nvifs > 0)) {
>         ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>                 " interfaces already exist.\n");
>         ret = -EINVAL;
>         goto out;
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
>

Hello, i'm having the same issue with multiple ad-hocs interfaces. The
limitation is just for ad-hoc interfaces, or any beaconing interfaces?
Because i need two interfaces, Ad-Hoc and AP Mode simultaneously, is
that possible with this driver?
Thanks in advance,

P?rez, Gast?n Ezequiel

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM, gaston <gperez@inti.gob.ar> wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
>>> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
>>> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
>>> appears. Thank you in advance.
>>
>> This limitation is intentional. ?The driver doesn't support more than
>> one ad-hoc interface. ?From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:
>>
>> if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>> ? ? ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
>> ? ? ?sc->nvifs > 0)) {
>> ? ? ? ? ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " interfaces already exist.\n");
>> ? ? ? ? ret = -EINVAL;
>> ? ? ? ? goto out;
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Pavel Roskin
>>
>
> Hello, i'm having the same issue with multiple ad-hocs interfaces. The
> limitation is just for ad-hoc interfaces, or any beaconing interfaces?
> Because i need two interfaces, Ad-Hoc and AP Mode simultaneously, is
> that possible with this driver?
> Thanks in advance,

*if you have one interface as ad-hoc you cannot have other interface.
limitation of the drive due to TSF.
*mac80211 restricts you cannot more than 1 ad-hoc interface.

I really don't know much about the details why is it like that... need
to look at the code :)

>
> P?rez, Gast?n Ezequiel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>



-- 
shafi

[ath9k-devel] multiple virtual ad-hoc interfaces

[gtolon at inti.gob.ar]

Finally we used hostapd to set an AP in wlan1, and created a virtual  
interface in ad-hoc mode using iw. When tryed to bring up the ad-hoc  
after the AP a "invalid argument" error appeared, but bringing the AP  
down, then the ad-hoc up and the AP up again it seemed to work OK.  
We?ll keep testing this configuration. Thank you very much for your  
answers.

Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@gmail.com> ha escrito:

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM, gaston <gperez@inti.gob.ar> wrote:
>>> On 06/23/2011 03:06 PM, gtolon at inti.gob.ar wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> We are trying to use 2 virtual interfaces in ad-hoc mode using the iw
>>>> utility and an atheros chipset 9285, but we can?t bring up both them.
>>>> When we try with the second a "device or resource bussy" message
>>>> appears. Thank you in advance.
>>>
>>> This limitation is intentional. ?The driver doesn't support more than
>>> one ad-hoc interface. ?From drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:
>>>
>>> if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>>> ? ? ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
>>> ? ? ?sc->nvifs > 0)) {
>>> ? ? ? ? ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " interfaces already exist.\n");
>>> ? ? ? ? ret = -EINVAL;
>>> ? ? ? ? goto out;
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Pavel Roskin
>>>
>>
>> Hello, i'm having the same issue with multiple ad-hocs interfaces. The
>> limitation is just for ad-hoc interfaces, or any beaconing interfaces?
>> Because i need two interfaces, Ad-Hoc and AP Mode simultaneously, is
>> that possible with this driver?
>> Thanks in advance,
>
> *if you have one interface as ad-hoc you cannot have other interface.
> limitation of the drive due to TSF.
> *mac80211 restricts you cannot more than 1 ad-hoc interface.
>
> I really don't know much about the details why is it like that... need
> to look at the code :)
>
>>
>> P?rez, Gast?n Ezequiel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> shafi
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Gabriel Tolón]

Hi

I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k 
and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master 
mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers 
connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the 
ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS 
(using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as 
far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and 
responses.

Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all 
worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat 
wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was 
running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with 
"iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported 
or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have 
the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n <gtolon@inti.gob.ar> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k
> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers
> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
> responses.
>
> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported
> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!

you would have got ?
[ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
interfaces already exist.

because of this check in main.c

  if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
            ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) &&
             sc->nvifs > 0)) {
                ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
                        " interfaces already exist.\n");
                ret = -EINVAL;
                goto out;
        }




>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>



-- 
shafi

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Gabriel Tolón]

Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:

   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:

     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when i try 
to create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up. However if 
i first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the original     
wlan0 and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with "ibss 
join" i get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of 
interface creation/bringing up is important in this case.

   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless 2.6.32-16:

     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and bring 
up an ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an 
ibss with "iw ibss join" and all works fine.


The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported anymore, if is 
something wrong about it. Thank you again.




El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>  wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k
>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers
>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
>> responses.
>>
>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported
>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
> you would have got ?
> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
> interfaces already exist.
>
> because of this check in main.c
>
>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>               sc->nvifs>  0)) {
>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>                          " interfaces already exist.\n");
>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>                  goto out;
>          }
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>
>
>

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Mohammed Shafi]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n <gtolon@inti.gob.ar> wrote:
> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>
> ?1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:
>
> ? ?Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when i try to
> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up. However if i
> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the original ? ? wlan0
> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with "ibss join" i
> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of interface
> creation/bringing up is important in this case.

this check might be missing there

commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e60a1b27428
Author: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanoharan@atheros.com>
Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530

    ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode

    The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
    already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
    addition if IBSS was already present.

    Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanoharan@atheros.com>
    Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>

>
> ?2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless 2.6.32-16:
>
> ? ?In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and bring up an
> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an ibss with
> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.

commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c00270dfe332e1c
Author: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000

    ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.

>
>
> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported anymore, if is
> something wrong about it. Thank you again.

I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF timer
handling in driver
>
>
>
>
> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k
>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers
>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
>>> responses.
>>>
>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported
>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>>
>> you would have got ?
>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>> interfaces already exist.
>>
>> because of this check in main.c
>>
>> ? if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?sc->nvifs> ?0)) {
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " interfaces already exist.\n");
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ret = -EINVAL;
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? goto out;
>> ? ? ? ? }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
shafi

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Gabriel Tolón]

Ok, i guess i can find that commits and comments on the wireless-testing 
git. i?ll dig into the code and the 80211 standard to analyze the 
beaconing problem also. Your answers have been very useful.

Regards


El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>  wrote:
>> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>>
>>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:
>>
>>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when i try to
>> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up. However if i
>> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the original     wlan0
>> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with "ibss join" i
>> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of interface
>> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
> this check might be missing there
>
> commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e60a1b27428
> Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
> Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
>
>      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
>
>      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
>      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
>      addition if IBSS was already present.
>
>      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville@tuxdriver.com>
>
>>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless 2.6.32-16:
>>
>>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and bring up an
>> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an ibss with
>> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
> commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c00270dfe332e1c
> Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>
> Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
>
>      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
>
>>
>> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported anymore, if is
>> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
> I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF timer
> handling in driver
>>
>>
>>
>> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>    wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k
>>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
>>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers
>>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
>>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
>>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
>>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
>>>> responses.
>>>>
>>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
>>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
>>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported
>>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
>>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>>> you would have got ?
>>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>>> interfaces already exist.
>>>
>>> because of this check in main.c
>>>
>>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
>>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>>>                          " interfaces already exist.\n");
>>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>>>                  goto out;
>>>          }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Keith Berkoben]

Not sure if this is useful info, but seeing this thread I just tried
creating an ap+adhoc device with openwrt on a linksys wrt160nl ( atheros
9xxx, compat-wireless 2011-06-22,   2.6.39.2 kernel, openwrt 27724).

I created the interfaces using openwrt's uci abstraction.  Both virtual
interfaces work fine.  I get G+ speeds (24-25Mbps, real) on the adhoc alone,
11Mbps from a STA all the way through and 28Mbps STA-AP.

The only thing I noticed that was strange is that hiding the ESSID for the
adhoc network had no effect (SSID was still advertised)

~Keith



On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gabriel Tol?n <gtolon@inti.gob.ar> wrote:

> Ok, i guess i can find that commits and comments on the wireless-testing
> git. i?ll dig into the code and the 80211 standard to analyze the
> beaconing problem also. Your answers have been very useful.
>
> Regards
>
>
> El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>
>  wrote:
> >> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
> >>
> >>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:
> >>
> >>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when i try
> to
> >> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up. However if i
> >> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the original
> wlan0
> >> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with "ibss join"
> i
> >> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of interface
> >> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
> > this check might be missing there
> >
> > commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e60a1b27428
> > Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
> > Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
> >
> >      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
> >
> >      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
> >      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
> >      addition if IBSS was already present.
> >
> >      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
> >      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville@tuxdriver.com>
> >
> >>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless 2.6.32-16:
> >>
> >>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and bring up
> an
> >> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an ibss
> with
> >> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
> > commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c00270dfe332e1c
> > Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>
> > Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
> >
> >      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
> >
> >>
> >> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported anymore, if is
> >> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
> > I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF timer
> > handling in driver
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>
>  wrote:
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with
> ath9k
> >>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
> >>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some
> computers
> >>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
> >>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
> >>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
> >>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
> >>>> responses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and
> all
> >>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
> >>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
> >>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
> >>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not
> supported
> >>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
> >>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
> >>> you would have got ?
> >>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
> >>> interfaces already exist.
> >>>
> >>> because of this check in main.c
> >>>
> >>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
> >>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
> >>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
> >>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when
> other"
> >>>                          " interfaces already exist.\n");
> >>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>                  goto out;
> >>>          }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
> >>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> >>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110723/5d4e7000/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] ath9k version and commits

[gtolon at inti.gob.ar]

Hi, i was looking into the wireless-testing git, and i don?t understand 
the relationship between the different commits and the srcversion of the 
ath9k drivers. For example i have the srcversion 
3D4208C725AB8FBF6E5A21B, and i couldn?t find that number in the 
wireless-testing ath9k git commits. I?d like to relate the different 
commit comments to the srcversions. Sorry if this is too basic but i?ve 
been searching for documentation about this without success.

El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>  wrote:
>> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>>
>>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:
>>
>>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when i try to
>> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up. However if i
>> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the original     wlan0
>> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with "ibss join" i
>> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of interface
>> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
> this check might be missing there
>
> commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e60a1b27428
> Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
> Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
>
>      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
>
>      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
>      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
>      addition if IBSS was already present.
>
>      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville@tuxdriver.com>
>
>>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless 2.6.32-16:
>>
>>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and bring up an
>> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an ibss with
>> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
> commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c00270dfe332e1c
> Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>
> Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
>
>      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
>
>>
>> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported anymore, if is
>> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
> I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF timer
> handling in driver
>>
>>
>>
>> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar>    wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel with ath9k
>>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other in master
>>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some computers
>>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
>>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up the IBSS
>>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending beacons, but as
>>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe requests and
>>>> responses.
>>>>
>>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the hostapd was
>>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the IBSS with
>>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not supported
>>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible to have
>>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>>> you would have got ?
>>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>>> interfaces already exist.
>>>
>>> because of this check in main.c
>>>
>>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
>>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
>>>                          " interfaces already exist.\n");
>>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>>>                  goto out;
>>>          }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[gtolon at inti.gob.ar]

Hi Keith, i want to start using openwrt. I've been reading the wiki and 
documentation from openwrt.org and i found how to build different 
drivers and packages using svn and menuconfig, but i haven't found how 
to build compat-wireless. I would appreciate some help on this topic. 
Thank you


El 23/07/2011 07:31 a.m., Keith Berkoben escribi?:
> Not sure if this is useful info, but seeing this thread I just tried
> creating an ap+adhoc device with openwrt on a linksys wrt160nl ( atheros
> 9xxx, compat-wireless 2011-06-22,   2.6.39.2 kernel, openwrt 27724).
>
> I created the interfaces using openwrt's uci abstraction.  Both virtual
> interfaces work fine.  I get G+ speeds (24-25Mbps, real) on the adhoc
> alone, 11Mbps from a STA all the way through and 28Mbps STA-AP.
>
> The only thing I noticed that was strange is that hiding the ESSID for
> the adhoc network had no effect (SSID was still advertised)
>
> ~Keith
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gabriel Tol?n <gtolon@inti.gob.ar
> <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>> wrote:
>
>     Ok, i guess i can find that commits and comments on the wireless-testing
>     git. i?ll dig into the code and the 80211 standard to analyze the
>     beaconing problem also. Your answers have been very useful.
>
>     Regards
>
>
>     El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>      > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar
>     <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>  wrote:
>      >> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>      >>
>      >>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless 2.6.39-1:
>      >>
>      >>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when
>     i try to
>      >> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up.
>     However if i
>      >> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the
>     original     wlan0
>      >> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with
>     "ibss join" i
>      >> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of
>     interface
>      >> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
>      > this check might be missing there
>      >
>      > commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e60a1b27428
>      > Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com
>     <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>>
>      > Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
>      >
>      >      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
>      >
>      >      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
>      >      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
>      >      addition if IBSS was already present.
>      >
>      >      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.com
>     <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>>
>      >      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville@tuxdriver.com
>     <mailto:linville@tuxdriver.com>>
>      >
>      >>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless
>     2.6.32-16:
>      >>
>      >>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and
>     bring up an
>      >> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an
>     ibss with
>      >> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
>      > commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c00270dfe332e1c
>      > Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com
>     <mailto:greearb@candelatech.com>>
>      > Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
>      >
>      >      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
>      >
>      >>
>      >> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported
>     anymore, if is
>      >> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
>      > I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF timer
>      > handling in driver
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>      >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel
>     Tol?n<gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>    wrote:
>      >>>> Hi
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel
>     with ath9k
>      >>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other
>     in master
>      >>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some
>     computers
>      >>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in the
>      >>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up
>     the IBSS
>      >>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending
>     beacons, but as
>      >>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe
>     requests and
>      >>>> responses.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat
>     wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>      >>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>      >>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the
>     hostapd was
>      >>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the
>     IBSS with
>      >>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not
>     supported
>      >>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible
>     to have
>      >>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>      >>> you would have got ?
>      >>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>      >>> interfaces already exist.
>      >>>
>      >>> because of this check in main.c
>      >>>
>      >>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>      >>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>      >>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
>      >>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface
>     when other"
>      >>> " interfaces already exist.\n");
>      >>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>      >>>                  goto out;
>      >>>          }
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> _______________________________________________
>      >>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>      >>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>
>      >>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ath9k-devel mailing list
>     ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>
>     https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>
>

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[Keith Berkoben]

Hey Gabriel,

Openwrt already uses compat-wireless by default when you select the ath9k
driver.  The version is defined in the makefile for mac80211:
https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/mac80211/Makefile

I've never tried to build in a version other than what's defined by default,
but I don't see why you couldn't change it to point at a custom/prerelease
version.

~Keith


On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:46 PM, <gtolon@inti.gob.ar> wrote:

> Hi Keith, i want to start using openwrt. I've been reading the wiki and
> documentation from openwrt.org and i found how to build different drivers
> and packages using svn and menuconfig, but i haven't found how to build
> compat-wireless. I would appreciate some help on this topic. Thank you
>
>
>
> El 23/07/2011 07:31 a.m., Keith Berkoben escribi?:
>
>> Not sure if this is useful info, but seeing this thread I just tried
>>
>> creating an ap+adhoc device with openwrt on a linksys wrt160nl ( atheros
>> 9xxx, compat-wireless 2011-06-22,   2.6.39.2 kernel, openwrt 27724).
>>
>> I created the interfaces using openwrt's uci abstraction.  Both virtual
>> interfaces work fine.  I get G+ speeds (24-25Mbps, real) on the adhoc
>> alone, 11Mbps from a STA all the way through and 28Mbps STA-AP.
>>
>> The only thing I noticed that was strange is that hiding the ESSID for
>> the adhoc network had no effect (SSID was still advertised)
>>
>> ~Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gabriel Tol?n <gtolon@inti.gob.ar
>> <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>> wrote:
>>
>>    Ok, i guess i can find that commits and comments on the
>> wireless-testing
>>    git. i?ll dig into the code and the 80211 standard to analyze the
>>    beaconing problem also. Your answers have been very useful.
>>
>>    Regards
>>
>>
>>    El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>>     > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel Tol?n<gtolon@inti.gob.ar
>>    <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>  wrote:
>>
>>     >> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>>     >>
>>     >>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless
>> 2.6.39-1:
>>     >>
>>     >>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when
>>    i try to
>>     >> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up.
>>    However if i
>>     >> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the
>>    original     wlan0
>>     >> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with
>>    "ibss join" i
>>     >> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of
>>    interface
>>     >> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
>>     > this check might be missing there
>>     >
>>     > commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e**60a1b27428
>>     > Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan at atheros.**com<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>>    <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com**>>
>>
>>     > Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
>>     >
>>     >      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
>>     >
>>     >      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
>>     >      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
>>     >      addition if IBSS was already present.
>>     >
>>     >      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan at atheros.**com<rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>>    <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com**>>
>>
>>     >      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville at tuxdriver.**com<linville@tuxdriver.com>
>>    <mailto:linville@tuxdriver.com**>>
>>
>>     >
>>     >>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless
>>    2.6.32-16:
>>     >>
>>     >>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and
>>    bring up an
>>     >> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an
>>    ibss with
>>     >> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
>>     > commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c0027**0dfe332e1c
>>     > Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com
>>    <mailto:greearb at candelatech.**com <greearb@candelatech.com>>>
>>
>>     > Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
>>     >
>>     >      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
>>     >
>>     >>
>>     >> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported
>>    anymore, if is
>>     >> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
>>     > I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of TSF
>> timer
>>     > handling in driver
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>>     >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel
>>    Tol?n<gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>    wrote:
>>
>>     >>>> Hi
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel
>>    with ath9k
>>     >>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other
>>    in master
>>     >>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some
>>    computers
>>     >>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS running in
>> the
>>     >>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up
>>    the IBSS
>>     >>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending
>>    beacons, but as
>>     >>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe
>>    requests and
>>     >>>> responses.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat
>>    wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>>     >>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>>     >>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the
>>    hostapd was
>>     >>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the
>>    IBSS with
>>     >>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not
>>    supported
>>     >>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible
>>    to have
>>     >>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>>     >>> you would have got ?
>>     >>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>>     >>> interfaces already exist.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> because of this check in main.c
>>     >>>
>>     >>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>>     >>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>>     >>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
>>     >>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface
>>    when other"
>>     >>> " interfaces already exist.\n");
>>     >>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>>     >>>                  goto out;
>>     >>>          }
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>     >>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>>     >>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.**
>> ath9k.org <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>>
>>
>>     >>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/**mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel<https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel>
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>    ______________________________**_________________
>>    ath9k-devel mailing list
>>    ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org <mailto:ath9k-devel at lists.**ath9k.org<ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>
>> >
>>
>>    https://lists.ath9k.org/**mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel<https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110825/0c9e552d/attachment-0001.htm 

[ath9k-devel] AP + IBSS in different ath9k versions

[gtolon at inti.gob.ar]

Thank you very much. I'll try that way and see what happens.

Best regards


El 25/08/2011 04:51 p.m., Keith Berkoben escribi?:
> Hey Gabriel,
>
> Openwrt already uses compat-wireless by default when you select the
> ath9k driver.  The version is defined in the makefile for mac80211:
> https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/mac80211/Makefile
>
> I've never tried to build in a version other than what's defined by
> default, but I don't see why you couldn't change it to point at a
> custom/prerelease version.
>
> ~Keith
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:46 PM, <gtolon@inti.gob.ar
> <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Keith, i want to start using openwrt. I've been reading the wiki
>     and documentation from openwrt.org <http://openwrt.org> and i found
>     how to build different drivers and packages using svn and
>     menuconfig, but i haven't found how to build compat-wireless. I
>     would appreciate some help on this topic. Thank you
>
>
>
>     El 23/07/2011 07:31 a.m., Keith Berkoben escribi?:
>
>         Not sure if this is useful info, but seeing this thread I just tried
>
>         creating an ap+adhoc device with openwrt on a linksys wrt160nl (
>         atheros
>         9xxx, compat-wireless 2011-06-22,   2.6.39.2 kernel, openwrt 27724).
>
>         I created the interfaces using openwrt's uci abstraction.  Both
>         virtual
>         interfaces work fine.  I get G+ speeds (24-25Mbps, real) on the
>         adhoc
>         alone, 11Mbps from a STA all the way through and 28Mbps STA-AP.
>
>         The only thing I noticed that was strange is that hiding the
>         ESSID for
>         the adhoc network had no effect (SSID was still advertised)
>
>         ~Keith
>
>
>
>         On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gabriel Tol?n
>         <gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>
>         <mailto:gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>> wrote:
>
>             Ok, i guess i can find that commits and comments on the
>         wireless-testing
>             git. i?ll dig into the code and the 80211 standard to
>         analyze the
>             beaconing problem also. Your answers have been very useful.
>
>             Regards
>
>
>             El 22/07/2011 12:05 p.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>          > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Gabriel
>         Tol?n<gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>
>         <mailto:gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>>  wrote:
>
>          >> Thank you for your answer. I?ll put it in two different cases:
>          >>
>          >>   1) with the ath9k driver with comes with compat wireless
>         2.6.39-1:
>          >>
>          >>     Yes, like you said that ?s the message i get from dmesg when
>             i try to
>          >> create the ad-hoc interface after another interface is up.
>             However if i
>          >> first create the ad-hoc interface then i can bring up the
>             original     wlan0
>          >> and run hostapd on it. But when i try to create an IBSS with
>         "ibss join" i
>          >> get "device or resource bussy". I don?t know why the order of
>             interface
>          >> creation/bringing up is important in this case.
>          > this check might be missing there
>          >
>          > commit 59575d1c717815d62f1b5aeac74e5e__60a1b27428
>          > Author: Rajkumar Manoharan<rmanoharan@atheros.__com
>         <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>         <mailto:rmanoharan at atheros.com <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>__>>
>
>          > Date:   Mon Apr 4 22:56:16 2011 +0530
>          >
>          >      ath9k: deny new interface addtion on IBSS mode
>          >
>          >      The present check denies the IBSS interface addtion if we
>          >      already have any other vifs. But it fails to deny interface
>          >      addition if IBSS was already present.
>          >
>          >      Signed-off-by: Rajkumar
>         Manoharan<rmanoharan at atheros.__com <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>
>         <mailto:rmanoharan at atheros.com <mailto:rmanoharan@atheros.com>__>>
>
>          >      Signed-off-by: John W. Linville<linville@tuxdriver.__com
>         <mailto:linville@tuxdriver.com>
>         <mailto:linville at tuxdriver.com <mailto:linville@tuxdriver.com>__>>
>
>          >
>          >>   2) with older ath9k versions, for example compat wireless
>             2.6.32-16:
>          >>
>          >>     In this case i can run hostapd in wlan0 and then create and
>             bring up an
>          >> ad-hoc interface without problems, furthermore i can join to an
>             ibss with
>          >> "iw ibss join" and all works fine.
>          > commit 4801416c76a3a355076d6d371c0027__0dfe332e1c
>          > Author: Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com
>         <mailto:greearb@candelatech.com>
>         <mailto:greearb at candelatech.__com <mailto:greearb@candelatech.com>>>
>
>          > Date:   Sat Jan 15 19:13:48 2011 +0000
>          >
>          >      ath9k: Fix up hardware mode and beacons with multiple vifs.
>          >
>          >>
>          >> The main doubt i have is why the case 2) is not supported
>             anymore, if is
>          >> something wrong about it. Thank you again.
>          > I am not aware of the details, but I think it is because of
>         TSF timer
>          > handling in driver
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>
>          >> El 22/07/2011 02:03 a.m., Mohammed Shafi escribi?:
>          >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Gabriel
>             Tol?n<gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>
>         <mailto:gtolon at inti.gob.ar <mailto:gtolon@inti.gob.ar>>>    wrote:
>
>          >>>> Hi
>          >>>>
>          >>>> I?ve been using an Atheros 9285 chipset in a 2.6.32-32 kernel
>             with ath9k
>          >>>> and two virtual interfaces, one in ad-hoc mode and the other
>             in master
>          >>>> mode using hostapd. That configuration worked fine, with some
>             computers
>          >>>> connected to the Acces Point and others to the IBSS
>         running in the
>          >>>> ad-hoc interface. The only problem was that when bringing up
>             the IBSS
>          >>>> (using iw) the interface using hostapd stopped sending
>             beacons, but as
>          >>>> far as i understood all kept working thanks to the probe
>             requests and
>          >>>> responses.
>          >>>>
>          >>>> Then i upgraded the ath9k driver using compat
>             wireless-2.6.32.16 and all
>          >>>> worked like before. But when i used the ath9k driver of compat
>          >>>> wireless-2.6.39-1 i couldn ?t bring the IBSS up when the
>             hostapd was
>          >>>> running (i could bring the ad hoc interface up, but not the
>             IBSS with
>          >>>> "iw ibss join"). I?d like to know if this configuration is not
>             supported
>          >>>> or will not be supported anymore, and if it could be possible
>             to have
>          >>>> the AP beaconing together with an IBSS. Thank you!
>          >>> you would have got ?
>          >>> [ 2841.528600] ath: Cannot create ADHOC interface when other
>          >>> interfaces already exist.
>          >>>
>          >>> because of this check in main.c
>          >>>
>          >>>    if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
>          >>>              ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
>          >>>               sc->nvifs>    0)) {
>          >>>                  ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface
>             when other"
>          >>> " interfaces already exist.\n");
>          >>>                  ret = -EINVAL;
>          >>>                  goto out;
>          >>>          }
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>
>          >>>>
>          >>>> _________________________________________________
>          >>>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>          >>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>         <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>
>         <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.__ath9k.org
>         <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>>
>
>          >>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/__mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>         <https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel>
>          >>>>
>          >>>
>          >>
>          >
>          >
>
>             _________________________________________________
>             ath9k-devel mailing list
>         ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>
>         <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.__ath9k.org
>         <mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>>
>
>         https://lists.ath9k.org/__mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>         <https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel>
>
>
>