Re: brcmfmac disconnects when iwd scans
Arend Van Spriel <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:37:43 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.iwd |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On June 12, 2025 3:51:34 PM KeithG <[email protected]> wrote: > Arend, > > I am still seeing this: > wpa_supplicant[431]: wlan0: Failed to initiate sched scan > > I tried the brcmfmac options listed above and got no change? Still > getting this every 6 seconds in the log. > Did I get the command in the modprobe conf wrong? Maybe. You could try to merge the two value so one line with 0x200002. Could be that wpa_supplicant determines support for scheduled scan in an unexpected way. Have not looked at the wpa_supplicant code for that. Regards, Arend > > On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 1:01 PM KeithG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> With this setup, things work really well and the only strange thing I >>>> am getting is a 'failed scheduled scan' message in the log every ~6 >>>> sec. >>>> >>>> May 09 08:53:50 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>>> May 09 08:53:57 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>>> May 09 08:54:03 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>>> May 09 08:54:09 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>>> May 09 08:54:16 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>>> May 09 08:54:22 pi4 wpa_supplicant[2254218]: wlan0: Failed to initiate >>>> sched scan >>> >>> I thought wpa_supplicant had a config option to disable scheduled scan, but >>> can not find it. You can disable it in brcmfmac using feature_disable=2 >>> modparam. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Arend >> Arend, >> >> Thanks. I must be doing something wrong as I still get the 'Failed to >> initiate scan' spammed in the log with this config: >> >> # cat /etc/modprobe.d/brcmfmac.conf >> options brcmfmac feature_disable=0x200000 >> options brcmfmac feature_disable=2 >> >> Do I have it formatted wrong? >> >> Keith >> >> I think you suggested the the first line due to a different log >> spamming message.