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 9F3871FECD2 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:42:09 +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=1733938931; cv=none; b=Rr6dvkac8t3FtjDk7ZynoF8yJii58pfade/ECIghOzAm4gucntzAd29MRbhPoLbeohUUWlrXi2sBFFrmtdtk1KO00IOazWIoV3/uGyGRMRxot3qk3Ki9WaXvFBp1dd9WlUFZwOo+XNUh+SuemrQMTyOT4QYKJG/MT6zLeSB6tq0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733938931; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qXu8dTjdB54vg2eNS9OB9yQqJWpu/QszOFjUbU7yuXI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=a46zyDEzlOK4vG4zLOToA84iVErEWHOlqs864Pm6qBuLaZBFJWI/n6frIjyOMnp/Nv+feM7O0cKo/Jz2RlrRwaBqARHETr5ihkdjbBgRpewiqJAvz8ZvF8274w+avlVRvsLBLMdbLsYkom/6POxm81GKUsuldhiIKMIwIZWS304= 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=bCv5qjyJ; 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="bCv5qjyJ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733938928; 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=qXu8dTjdB54vg2eNS9OB9yQqJWpu/QszOFjUbU7yuXI=; b=bCv5qjyJAxkClizCG1jgbARVva8aZnJrIHXFcjoTNgXfnVWF8UNSKO/EmJZAYQHctMJuNI ENf96QZ29S7zmM7vWKkSxwS9VcbLXUTaUQ/GY2iJB61aiUldO9NasqqILIVTehQRa8lpY6 CYrESK9lqn1t+UXRnUaPWdNcH+dwUhI= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.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-313-uJzm67B0MeOQ3jz9N9ZhFA-1; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:42:03 -0500 X-MC-Unique: uJzm67B0MeOQ3jz9N9ZhFA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: uJzm67B0MeOQ3jz9N9ZhFA Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (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-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1BD71955F28; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:42:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.126]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202C719560AA; Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:41:56 +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: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 18:41:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20241211174155.30782-1-jtornosm@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: 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 10.30.177.12 > Got it, you use Networkmanager, so that the add interface type will > always be managed. But it's still work fine in my device that I use > "hostapd hostapd2.conf" to up the second ap. Yes, it works for you because you don't have a manager and/or your initial situation was clean and/or without other needs/services. For us it was enough to be able to come back to the initial interface combination, but it seems that you prefer to have a common configuration for everything. So, since I think it is your final intention, please, go ahead with your proposed interface combination and then I will debug myself to try complete and/or reuse in some way. Thanks Best regards Jose Ignacio