All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] wl12xx: Set the correct min&max dwell time setting on passive scan
@ 2011-09-04 13:28 Shahar Levi
  2011-09-22  7:35 ` Luciano Coelho
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Shahar Levi @ 2011-09-04 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-wireless; +Cc: Luciano Coelho, Shahar Levi

In case of forced passive scan (n_ssids = 0), active permission
channels have been set with active min&max dwell time and
selected for passive scan.

That patch includes the following fixes:
1) Skip scan in case of active scan request and forced passive
   scan (n_ssids = 0) indication
2) all channels that not selected before in active scan should
   be selected in passive scan (including active channels)
3) Improve scan SM by calling only passive states in case of
   forced passive scan (n_ssids = 0)

Signed-off-by: Shahar Levi <shahar_levi@ti.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.c |   61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.h |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.c
index af4ad23..cb12409 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.c
@@ -94,17 +94,26 @@ static int wl1271_get_scan_channels(struct wl1271 *wl,
 	struct conf_scan_settings *c = &wl->conf.scan;
 	int i, j;
 	u32 flags;
+	bool passive_channel;
 
 	for (i = 0, j = 0;
 	     i < req->n_channels && j < WL1271_SCAN_MAX_CHANNELS;
 	     i++) {
 
 		flags = req->channels[i]->flags;
+		passive_channel = !!(flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN);
 
 		if (!test_bit(i, wl->scan.scanned_ch) &&
 		    !(flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED) &&
-		    ((!!(flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN)) == passive) &&
-		    (req->channels[i]->band == band)) {
+		    (req->channels[i]->band == band) &&
+		    /*
+		     * In case of passive scan, all channels that not selected
+		     * before in active scan should be selected(including active
+		     * channels)
+		     * In case of active scan validate the channel scan
+		     * permission
+		     */
+		    (passive || (passive_channel == false))) {
 
 			wl1271_debug(DEBUG_SCAN, "band %d, center_freq %d ",
 				     req->channels[i]->band,
@@ -157,6 +166,9 @@ static int wl1271_scan_send(struct wl1271 *wl, enum ieee80211_band band,
 	int ret;
 	u16 scan_options = 0;
 
+	wl1271_debug(DEBUG_SCAN, "scan send: band %d, passive %d",
+		     band, passive);
+
 	cmd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
 	trigger = kzalloc(sizeof(*trigger), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!cmd || !trigger) {
@@ -167,9 +179,16 @@ static int wl1271_scan_send(struct wl1271 *wl, enum ieee80211_band band,
 	/* We always use high priority scans */
 	scan_options = WL1271_SCAN_OPT_PRIORITY_HIGH;
 
-	/* No SSIDs means that we have a forced passive scan */
-	if (passive || wl->scan.req->n_ssids == 0)
+	if (passive) {
 		scan_options |= WL1271_SCAN_OPT_PASSIVE;
+	} else if (wl->scan.req->n_ssids == 0) {
+			/*
+			 * no SSIDs means that we have a forced passive scan.
+			 * in case active scan req skip scan
+			 */
+			ret = WL1271_NOTHING_TO_SCAN;
+			goto out;
+	}
 
 	if (WARN_ON(wl->role_id == WL12XX_INVALID_ROLE_ID)) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
@@ -247,6 +266,19 @@ void wl1271_scan_stm(struct wl1271 *wl)
 		ret = wl1271_scan_send(wl, IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ, false,
 				       wl->conf.tx.basic_rate);
 		if (ret == WL1271_NOTHING_TO_SCAN) {
+			if (wl->enable_11a)
+				wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_ACTIVE;
+			else
+				wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_PASSIVE;
+			wl1271_scan_stm(wl);
+		}
+
+		break;
+
+	case WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_ACTIVE:
+		ret = wl1271_scan_send(wl, IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ, false,
+				       wl->conf.tx.basic_rate_5);
+		if (ret == WL1271_NOTHING_TO_SCAN) {
 			wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_PASSIVE;
 			wl1271_scan_stm(wl);
 		}
@@ -258,7 +290,7 @@ void wl1271_scan_stm(struct wl1271 *wl)
 				       wl->conf.tx.basic_rate);
 		if (ret == WL1271_NOTHING_TO_SCAN) {
 			if (wl->enable_11a)
-				wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_ACTIVE;
+				wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_PASSIVE;
 			else
 				wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_DONE;
 			wl1271_scan_stm(wl);
@@ -266,16 +298,6 @@ void wl1271_scan_stm(struct wl1271 *wl)
 
 		break;
 
-	case WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_ACTIVE:
-		ret = wl1271_scan_send(wl, IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ, false,
-				       wl->conf.tx.basic_rate_5);
-		if (ret == WL1271_NOTHING_TO_SCAN) {
-			wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_PASSIVE;
-			wl1271_scan_stm(wl);
-		}
-
-		break;
-
 	case WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_PASSIVE:
 		ret = wl1271_scan_send(wl, IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ, true,
 				       wl->conf.tx.basic_rate_5);
@@ -317,7 +339,14 @@ int wl1271_scan(struct wl1271 *wl, const u8 *ssid, size_t ssid_len,
 	if (wl->scan.state != WL1271_SCAN_STATE_IDLE)
 		return -EBUSY;
 
-	wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_ACTIVE;
+	if (req->n_ssids == 0)
+		/*
+		 * no SSIDs means that we have a forced passive scan.
+		 * in that case skip active scan states
+		 */
+		wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_PASSIVE;
+	else
+		wl->scan.state = WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_ACTIVE;
 
 	if (ssid_len && ssid) {
 		wl->scan.ssid_len = ssid_len;
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.h b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.h
index 9211515..69e31d5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/scan.h
@@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ void wl1271_scan_sched_scan_results(struct wl1271 *wl);
 enum {
 	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_IDLE,
 	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_ACTIVE,
-	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_PASSIVE,
 	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_ACTIVE,
+	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_2GHZ_PASSIVE,
 	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_5GHZ_PASSIVE,
 	WL1271_SCAN_STATE_DONE
 };
-- 
1.7.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wl12xx: Set the correct min&max dwell time setting on passive scan
  2011-09-04 13:28 [PATCH] wl12xx: Set the correct min&max dwell time setting on passive scan Shahar Levi
@ 2011-09-22  7:35 ` Luciano Coelho
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Luciano Coelho @ 2011-09-22  7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shahar Levi; +Cc: linux-wireless

On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 16:28 +0300, Shahar Levi wrote: 
> In case of forced passive scan (n_ssids = 0), active permission
> channels have been set with active min&max dwell time and
> selected for passive scan.
> 
> That patch includes the following fixes:
> 1) Skip scan in case of active scan request and forced passive
>    scan (n_ssids = 0) indication
> 2) all channels that not selected before in active scan should
>    be selected in passive scan (including active channels)
> 3) Improve scan SM by calling only passive states in case of
>    forced passive scan (n_ssids = 0)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shahar Levi <shahar_levi@ti.com>
> ---

Dropped in favor of my "wl12xx: fix forced passive scans".  No need to
change the state-machine at the same time as this bug is fixed.  The
state-machine was just over-complicating things.

I also wanted to do some clean-ups, and the fix is so simple that I
decided to make a new patch from scratch altogether.

-- 
Cheers,
Luca.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-22  7:35 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-04 13:28 [PATCH] wl12xx: Set the correct min&max dwell time setting on passive scan Shahar Levi
2011-09-22  7:35 ` Luciano Coelho

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.