From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
In ath9k we make sure the following two things
*if the first interface is ADHOC we cannot have any other interface.
*we cannot add an ADHOC interface if there is already an interface
is present.
when drv_add_interface is called during resume we got to consider
numb
Hi Johannes,
On Friday 01 June 2012 12:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:09 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
>>
>> In ath9k we make sure the following two things
>> *if the first interface is ADHOC we cannot have any other interface.
>>
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:39 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> On Friday 01 June 2012 12:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:09 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> >> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
> >>
> >> In ath9k we make sure the following two t
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:09 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
>
> In ath9k we make sure the following two things
> *if the first interface is ADHOC we cannot have any other interface.
> *we cannot add an ADHOC interface if there is already an interface
> is p
On Friday 01 June 2012 12:43 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:39 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> Hi Johannes,
>>
>> On Friday 01 June 2012 12:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:09 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
From: Mohammed Shafi Sha
Hi Mohammed,
> >>> You could just remove the entire check since the interface combinations
> >>> you advertise don't allow it, I think? Or just fix those
> >>> combinations :-)
> >>
> >> i did not check this before, thanks a lot for your inputs. will send a
> >> proper v2 after checking this out.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> The sets are mutually exclusive, and there are implied sets of each
> interface with a max number of 1. So for example, in iwlwifi we don't
> advertise IBSS in the combinations at all, because it's not compatible
> with anything. In your cas
On 2012-06-02 8:14 PM, Guido Iribarren wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Johannes Berg
> wrote:
>>
>> The sets are mutually exclusive, and there are implied sets of each
>> interface with a max number of 1. So for example, in iwlwifi we don't
>> advertise IBSS in the combinations at all, b
Hi Johannes,
> You could just remove the entire check since the interface combinations
> you advertise don't allow it, I think? Or just fix those
> combinations :-)
i did not check this before, thanks a lot for your inputs. will send a
proper v2 after checking this out.
