On my colibri imx8x module I am using the DBUS api to communicate to the connman service to control the api. I have noticed that when ever I initiate a scan for wireless networks I see a error from wpa_supplicant.
wpa_supplicant: wlp1s0: Failed to initiate sched scan
Is this normal ?
I did follow this page. I am able to connect to the wireless network via connman and everything works fine. I am just curious about the error I am seeing in the journal ? Is there something additional I need to do?
Could you please specify OS and BSP you are using and steps to replicate your issue?
I am using a custom yocto os based on the latest dunfell bsp (5.4.193).
Whenever I do a connmanctl scan wifi I see the message appear in the journalctl .
Hi @nmohan86
I believe this message is coming from connman and has to do with scans for new APs while connected to an AP. Recently we disabled this background scan by default but I’m not sure if that has made it to a released build yet. I am fairly certain you can just ignore this message. Are you seeing any adverse affects on your wifi connection?
Drew
The only adverse affect I see is that when I am trying to scan via my application it collides with wpa_supplicant and I get a busy status.
How would I go about disabling this scan ?
We add bgscan="" into `/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf to disable this:
root@apalis-imx8:~# cat /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf
ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant
ctrl_interface_group=0
update_config=1
bgscan=""
network={
key_mgmt=NONE
}
Drew
Thank you that helps.
I am also periodically seeing a a association failure. Do you know what could be causing this?
Nov 02 18:52:19 colibri-imx8x wpa_supplicant[654]: mlan0: Trying to associate with 06:55:6d:10:f7:56 (SSID='ivWatch-Guest' freq=2462 MHz)
Nov 02 18:52:19 colibri-imx8x kernel: mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: info: trying to associate to 'ivWatch-Guest' bssid 06:55:6d:10:f7:56
Nov 02 18:52:19 colibri-imx8x kernel[383]: [ 271.485779] mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: info: trying to associate to 'ivWatch-Guest' bssid 06:55:6d:10:f7:56
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel: mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: ASSOC_RESP: failed, status code=2 err=0xfffa a_id=0x3fff
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel: mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: assoc failure: reason Unknown connect failure
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel: mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: info: association to bssid 06:55:6d:10:f7:56 failed
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel[383]: [ 272.504610] mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: ASSOC_RESP: failed, status code=2 err=0xfffa a_id=0x3fff
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel[383]: [ 272.513630] mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: assoc failure: reason Unknown connect failure
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x kernel[383]: [ 272.521694] mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: info: association to bssid 06:55:6d:10:f7:56 failed
Nov 02 18:52:20 colibri-imx8x wpa_supplicant[654]: mlan0: CTRL-EVENT-ASSOC-REJECT bssid=00:00:00:00:00:00 status_code=2
I don’t have an answer but I have some comments. I looked through the code and this is where this error is handled (drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/join.c):
675 if (status_code) {
676 priv->adapter->dbg.num_cmd_assoc_failure++;
677 mwifiex_dbg(priv->adapter, ERROR,
678 "ASSOC_RESP: failed,\t"
679 "status code=%d err=%#x a_id=%#x\n",
680 status_code, cap_info,
681 le16_to_cpu(assoc_rsp->a_id));
682
683 mwifiex_dbg(priv->adapter, ERROR, "assoc failure: reason %s\n",
684 assoc_failure_reason_to_str(cap_info));
685 if (cap_info == CONNECT_ERR_ASSOC_ERR_TIMEOUT) {
686 if (status_code == MWIFIEX_ASSOC_CMD_FAILURE_AUTH) {
687 ret = WLAN_STATUS_AUTH_TIMEOUT;
688 mwifiex_dbg(priv->adapter, ERROR,
689 "ASSOC_RESP: AUTH timeout\n");
690 } else {
691 ret = WLAN_STATUS_UNSPECIFIED_FAILURE;
692 mwifiex_dbg(priv->adapter, ERROR,
693 "ASSOC_RESP: UNSPECIFIED failure\n");
694 }
695 } else {
696 ret = status_code;
697 }
The specific error code that’s being returned is not handled by the driver. This brings some questions:
If I understood the code correctly, the error could also indicate the IEEE status code for this operation. As the code shown (0xfffa) is -6 in decimal, it could mean “Unacceptable lifetime” according to this.
Unfortunately, I also don´t know what “Unacceptable lifetime” means, it’s probably described in one of the IEEE 802.11 standards which I don’t have access at the moment.
Rafael