From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:33126 "EHLO fmmailgate03.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753664AbZKHNvm (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:51:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4AF6CC02.8080204@web.de> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:47:46 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kalle Valo CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ar9170 in AP mode References: <4AF6C7CD.7060108@web.de> <878wehf85v.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> In-Reply-To: <878wehf85v.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig55921DDC9C740E17C3AC764D" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig55921DDC9C740E17C3AC764D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kalle Valo wrote: > Jan Kiszka writes: >=20 >> the ar9170 is not advertising its AP feature. However, hacking in the >> bit allows me to run an AP on my D-Link DWA 160A with the sources of >> yesterday's wireless-testing. Works mostly fine so far, just device >> startup (firmware loading?) is sometimes a bit fragile, and rate contr= ol >> seems to jump more than needed when the connection gets worse. >> >> There was some telling the multicast transmission would not work, but = I >> just tested it and cannot confirm this. Did something change or does a= >> specific multicast scenario still fail? Otherwise I would like to see = AP >> mode enabled in the ar9170 so that it works without modifying kernel >> sources. Would post a patch then. >=20 > Did you test with a client which had power save mode enabled? That's > the tricky part.=20 Probably not, ath5k on my notebook doesn't support it. Now looking for some station that does. >=20 > IMHO AP mode should not be enabled until it's confirmed that power > save mode works properly. How common is the combination of powersaving and mcast in practice? Given that quite a few useful scenarios are blocked right now (unless you know what to patch), I would at least vote for a config option or a module parameter. That gives a chance to warn the user about this limitation without locking out people that are no hackers. Jan --------------enig55921DDC9C740E17C3AC764D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkr2zAUACgkQitSsb3rl5xTiFgCgjGSJUZvdMA9ong7hwDT6HV1R ORAAnRBfSB+8T0DDUpdqZkKS30lvM3tT =FPoe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig55921DDC9C740E17C3AC764D--