Re: brcmsmac still woes, possible regression?

["Arend van Spriel" <arend@broadcom.com>]

On 05/09/2012 07:41 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:23:43PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 05/09/2012 11:41 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Hi Arend,
>>>
>>> Arend van Spriel wrote, about a month ago[1]:
>>>
>>>> I sent the patch to Camaleón to test it before sending out the
>>>> patch. So the answer it definitely no. I wanted to get it into rc1,
>>>> but we missed that.
>>>
>>> Any news?  If there's a patch that goes in the right direction with
>>> known problems I'd still be interested in it, among other reasons
>>> because it would make the bug more concrete and make it easier to
>>> think about possible fixes.
>>
>> Well, there is the short term fix, which is already upstream and moved
>> to stable. The long term fix for which Seth Forshee (Canonical) did a
>> great job is reviewed over here, but it involves regulatory related code
>> so it needs discussions with our compliance team and supervisor. So that
>> causes some lag time.
> 
> The patches I sent still relies on the transmit-after-beacon fix, as I
> preserved the behavior of muting tx if the channel is passive scan. I
> *think* this isn't actually necessary, but I'd have to investigate a
> little further to be certain.
> 
> Seth
> 

As part of the discussion over here I am proposing to get rid of the tx
muting in brcmsmac as mac80211 already has that behaviour for passive
channels if I am not mistaken (is this true, Johannes?).

Gr. AvS