From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C92B1A7273 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733213060; cv=none; b=PWPj6RNCk3JxIdQf6gbeItRcDTWKaDKReDFOfUa/u1mU7QZKVUiag7TM5t4Td3yNzxiWD/UpwtPN9xntaTOTq4AIm3T4ahSdcl6JoreyhXTz3JTlxRrhqUskVpH1TCsYrTHrCohraPyiPtCSZt2n3xjm19Ht2oQUxnd/nhfqtHc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733213060; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EUnucm2fTy2CjmZdyCADxmI4mKYutrlWNpBYbKjw3IA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=tQ0hCJtbpO1yLrYyXqcm3MLVmK8FTKzfKd/DID1wBn8OkzgyyzWY5xPfA++WAwTeqs2rPZa+b/zMSPG0belqaqs2vw7A6Tg4wz7E7dE7YgjZ223AfZ+IDQFICRSn6X5aLOJyjvUatHDqT73zAJfjU14ZX7hkxEJnv/dPvUgWwP0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=BZTq1jZi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="BZTq1jZi" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733213058; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=EUnucm2fTy2CjmZdyCADxmI4mKYutrlWNpBYbKjw3IA=; b=BZTq1jZiMM8cRIFbog0Qakho8005qk4UoB/9RCFL5QAF8TnEu9Jrsih3a/YEibEp5Aruy0 A7yCfqTTpG6QMbWVLMb6xvHz3MRFUTO3fWkxcVaSWHc8MZOmervZIqSzYQqO/4B1vOlKuQ JcFywekr8Rd+T/ZEfv2rL5xK8TNdRm8= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-425-AYhAh3tjOcC4wCg3CCkrFg-1; Tue, 03 Dec 2024 03:04:14 -0500 X-MC-Unique: AYhAh3tjOcC4wCg3CCkrFg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: AYhAh3tjOcC4wCg3CCkrFg Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6FD19560BC; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:04:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.136]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C10E1956054; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:04:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez To: quic_yuzha@quicinc.com Cc: ath11k@lists.infradead.org, jjohnson@kernel.org, jtornosm@redhat.com, kvalo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, quic_cjhuang@quicinc.com, vbenes@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: allow APs combination when dual stations are supported Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:04:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20241203080407.100913-1-jtornosm@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <7ccd4b98-9557-4a8b-b493-e01b157c71e2@quicinc.com> References: <7ccd4b98-9557-4a8b-b493-e01b157c71e2@quicinc.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 Sorry, but your solution is not working for me. We need to be able to setup 2 APs, as it was possible before, and with your interface combinations it is not possible either. I was trying to create a second interface combination to recover the old scenario as well, but I couldn't, that is the reason why I have implemented this parameter. Thanks Best regards Jose Ignacio