Re: [PATCH 1/7] mt76x02: use mask for vifs

[Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:29:27PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2019-01-28 12:16, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:41:45AM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> > >> Moreover I am a little worried about tpt regressions with this patch.
> >> > >> Are you sure that if you use complete different mac addresses on a multivif scenario
> >> > >> you can get the same tpt on all the interfaces? Could you please provide some
> >> > >> tpt results?
> >> > > 
> >> > > How exactly posted patch can cause tpt regression ?
> >> > > 
> >> > > Posted patch just add possibility to configure HW MAC address
> >> > > by this:
> >> > > 
> >> > > iw dev wlan0 del
> >> > > iw phy phy0 interface add wlan0 type managed addr 00:11:22:33:44:55
> >> > > 
> >> > > what is feature of mt76x2u. Patch just extend that possibly to other
> >> > > mt76x02 devices and allow to remove custom mt76x2u add_interfacea
> >> > > callback.
> >> > The main part that could cause issues is that you're changing the way
> >> > that the vif index is calculated. Without the patch, it's calculated
> >> > from the MAC address in a way consistent with what the hardware expects.
> >> > With the patch, it's just allocated from a mask.
> >> > The vif index ends up being passed down to the hardware as a BSS index
> >> > WCID attribute in mt76x02_mac_wcid_setup.
> >> > We would have to run some tests with multiple AP interfaces, bringing up
> >> > secondary interfaces in a different order to see if there are any
> >> > regressions there if the BSS index no longer matches the MAC address
> >> > based index.
> >> 
> >> Ok, that objection make sense.  I'll check that.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or current code is
> > wrong. But when I configure multi bssid's is hostapd.conf like this:
> > 
> > 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0
> > 06:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0
> > 0a:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0
> > 
> > hostapd fail with "Too many bits in the BSSID mask" error . To make hostapd
> > work, I have configure bssid's like this:
> Do you have a bssid mask set? I don't think the current code does that.
> Also, in OpenWrt, I didn't see any issue like that.

Not sure if there is bssid mask option , seems hostapd calculate that
from provided bssid= fields. However I realized there is

use_driver_iface_addr=1

and that make things work as expected.

Thanks
Stanislaw