[PATCH v2] cfg80211: add VHT support for Mesh

Peter Oh poh at codeaurora.org
Fri Nov 13 15:50:37 PST 2015

On 11/12/2015 11:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 15:05 -0800, Peter Oh wrote:
>> On 11/12/2015 02:32 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 14:28 -0800, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>> Exactly the same communication mechanism and purpose are used
>>>> with
>>>> NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_VHT_IBSS which is already a part of NL80211
>>>> feature
>>>> flag.
>>>> The new feature flag, NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_VHT_MESH, follows the
>>>> same
>>>> purpose and usage.
>>> No, it doesn't. Check how the _IBSS one is used in the code to
>>> actually
>>> *do* something.
>> that's right. so take a look reset of explanation for this patch.
> Still not making sense.
> I *suspect* that you think that the existing code is broken, and can't
> use VHT mesh and requires driver changes for it,
I'm saying, cannot use VHT Mesh by wpa_supplicant because a lack of 
communication method between driver and wpa_supplicant, hence extending 
NL80211 feature flag.
>   but that's not what
> your ath10k change shows since it also does nothing at all.
ath10k is advertising its VHT Mesh capability using NL80211 feature flag 
in the patch which wpa_supplicant can listen and catch up.
> Right now, I see no reason whatsoever to apply either one of those two
> patches. There are no functional changes, so wpa_supplicant could
> enable VHT mesh by checking VHT capabilities or so instead of a special
> feature flag.
You're asking wpa_supplicant enhancement which is not fair to engineers 
that did not involve the design implementation.
Also if you think Mesh should check VHT capabilities instead of a 
special feature flag, you had to ask the same thing to _VHT_IBSS.
_VHT_IBSS feature flag is also used to advertise driver's capability of 
VHT for IBSS instead of checking driver's information elements.
if IBSS had read VHT capability from driver's IE, _VHT_IBSS flag used at 
nl80211_join_ibss also shouldn't have existed.
> I also suspect that perhaps mesh *should* be checking like IBSS does,
> although I also would actually *prefer* that we can assume VHT mesh
> works if the driver advertises VHT support and mesh support separately,
> i.e. a new feature flag really isn't necessary.
Both IBSS and Mesh may support VHT without any feature flags. However 
this patch's approach is come from _VHT_IBSS feature flag which you 
already approved and so exists on upstream.
If you're asking not to use _VHT_MESH feature flag and look for another 
way, your request affects to wpa_supplicant design of ibss and mesh, 
since mesh and ibss frequency info are handled at the same function and 
the function is designed to use _VHT_IBSS feature flag. If Mesh cannot 
use the _VHT_MESH feature flag, the design of function cannot keep the 
consistency of capability check.

If you're saying _VHT_MESH feature flag is different from _VHT_IBSS 
because of what it is doing at nl80211_join_ibss function, I will add 
another patch to nl80211_join_mesh function to make _VHT_MESH feature 
flag the same as _VHT_IBSS. Will you be convinced then?

> In any case, the arguments for this patch haven't convinced me. I'm not
> going to apply this without much better ones.
> johannes
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> ath10k at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

More information about the ath10k mailing list