From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s72.web-hosting.com ([198.187.29.21]:38493 "EHLO s72.web-hosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751447Ab3LALjR (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Dec 2013 06:39:17 -0500 From: Sujith Manoharan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <21147.7863.597679.144982@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (sfid-20131201_123934_688719_12A0A2CE) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:04:15 +0530 To: Johannes Berg Cc: Drasko DRASKOVIC , j@w1.fi, "hostap\@lists.shmoo.com" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: multi-wiphy (virtual radios that can be used with multiple channels) In-Reply-To: <1385890789.4171.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <21146.33378.141904.187743@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <21146.47199.25277.169624@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1385890789.4171.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg wrote: > Technically, it's not. Multi-channel support will *not* imply that you > are able to put an AP and a client interface on two different channels - > the AP wouldn't work correctly due to being absent when the client > interface is being handled. > > I would recommend against a driver allowing such use case since there's > no way to tell the user that it's a stupid idea. I had P2P GO/Client in mind. I should have mentioned that. Sujith