Problem with BSS properties

Marcel Holtmann marcel
Fri Dec 25 16:23:34 PST 2009

Hi Witold,

> >>> so I am heavily toying with the new D-Bus API right now and I found some
> >>> weird behavior with within the BSS interface. So basically every BSS
> >>> object contains one property with the name "Properties". That is just
> >>> stupid and I hope it is just a bug.
> >>>
> >>> We should actually put the BSS properties as real properties of the BSS
> >>> interface. Then the PropertiesChanged signal could be doing something
> >>> meaningful and actually indicate signal strength changes etc.
> >> I think that's what the spec from last summer originally had actually;
> >> maybe the implementation just got mixed up.  I see that I perhaps didn't
> >> make the spec completely clear:
> >>
> >> O: /fi/w1.wpa_supplicant1/Interfaces/<interface_number>/BSSs/<BSSID>
> >> I: fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.BSS
> >>
> >> P: <BSS properties - identical to old API BSSID properties> (read-only)
> >>
> >>
> >> But yeah, each BSSID property should just be exposed as a property of
> >> the object instead of a "Properties" property as a dict as you say.
> > 
> > this is how I remember and also understood the specification. I am
> > almost done with a patch to fix this. However I will be off for the rest
> > of the day so I will not be able to finish it until later tomorrow.
> > 
> > I am planning to add "Mode" (string) and "Privacy" (boolean) properties
> > that can be used instead of manually decoding the capabilities. Actually
> > exposing the raw capabilities of a BSS is pretty much pointless from my
> > point of view.
> > 
> I think that instead "Mode" (string), "Adhoc" (boolean) would be better,
> but thats fine for me to remove capabilities property.

using "Mode" would be more appropriate since we do the same for the
capabilities in the interface object.

> > The other thing are the quality and noise properties. Do you still want
> > these? Or can we just go for a signal property showing the dBm value
> > like iw scan does. I don't see any extra value in keeping deprecated
> > values in the new API.
> > 
> > Do you think a "Display" or "Name" property showing the SSID in
> > converted UTF-8 would be useful. Or should the clients do that
> > translation?
> > 
> That would be a kind of redundancy since we still need SSID property. I
> would left translation for clients like NM.

I am fully aware that it would be duplication. However in case of magic
for Chinese SSID for example, it could be nice if we do this only once.
It is just an idea.



More information about the Hostap mailing list