From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:42997 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753842Ab1A0XH4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:07:56 -0500 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p0RN7ton025810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:07:56 -0800 Message-ID: <4D41FACB.2010807@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:07:55 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Multiple vifs and HT v/s non-HT. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: We found something fun while playing with HT mode: We had some vifs associated with an AP with HT enabled, and other VIFS to an AP with HT disabled. They managed to associate, but with slow rates and for whatever reason, nothing is able to send traffic. I would have expected one set or the other would be able to send traffic. The ath9k hardware ended up in HT mode according to ath9k debugfs wiphy file, but that was probably just luck. I'm not too sure how to ensure this mixed-mode HT scenario doesn't happen at this point... Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com