* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? @ 2011-03-09 10:48 Jussi Haakana 2011-03-09 11:02 ` Adrian Chadd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jussi Haakana @ 2011-03-09 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel Hi, I have a setup in which I can connect only one antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries to use both antennas even though there is only one antenna connected. I've read from earlier posts that this could be done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) also? If I do this, does this have any side effects? - Jussi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-09 10:48 [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? Jussi Haakana @ 2011-03-09 11:02 ` Adrian Chadd 2011-03-09 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Adrian Chadd @ 2011-03-09 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in the same location!) but that shouldn't matter. There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the sleep/btcoex mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what happens. HTH, Adrian On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a setup in which I can connect only one > antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way > to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not > sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump > on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries > to use both antennas even though there is only one > antenna connected. > > I've read from earlier posts that this could be > done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this > apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) > also? If I do this, does this have any side > effects? > > - Jussi > _______________________________________________ > ath9k-devel mailing list > ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110309/3c16edd6/attachment.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-09 11:02 ` Adrian Chadd @ 2011-03-09 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi 2011-03-09 11:51 ` Jussi Haakana 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-09 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg > open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in the same > location!) but that shouldn't matter. > > There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the sleep/btcoex > mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what happens. also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of int ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) hw.c helps 2016 tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; 2017 rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; > > HTH, > > > Adrian > > On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have a setup in which I can connect only one >> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way >> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not >> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump >> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries >> to use both antennas even though there is only one >> antenna connected. >> >> I've read from earlier posts that this could be >> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this >> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) >> also? If I do this, does this have any side >> effects? >> >> - Jussi >> _______________________________________________ >> ath9k-devel mailing list >> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > ath9k-devel mailing list > ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-09 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-09 11:51 ` Jussi Haakana [not found] ` <AANLkTikpYwN2ebakhpQtR1zgyKm8xsoKqznEKgX4PZa_@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jussi Haakana @ 2011-03-09 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On 9.3.2011 13:39, Mohammed Shafi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg >> open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in the same >> location!) but that shouldn't matter. >> >> There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the sleep/btcoex >> mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what happens. > > also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of int > ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) > hw.c helps > > 2016 tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; > 2017 rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; > Ok, thanks, I'll try with these changes. - Jussi >> >> On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a setup in which I can connect only one >>> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way >>> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not >>> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump >>> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries >>> to use both antennas even though there is only one >>> antenna connected. >>> >>> I've read from earlier posts that this could be >>> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this >>> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) >>> also? If I do this, does this have any side >>> effects? >>> >>> - Jussi >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ath9k-devel mailing list >> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <AANLkTikpYwN2ebakhpQtR1zgyKm8xsoKqznEKgX4PZa_@mail.gmail.com>]
[parent not found: <4D777AE9.3020704@7signal.com>]
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? [not found] ` <4D777AE9.3020704@7signal.com> @ 2011-03-09 15:14 ` Mohammed Shafi 2011-03-09 16:04 ` Adrian Chadd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-09 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com> wrote: > On 9.3.2011 14:29, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com> >> ?wrote: >>> >>> On 9.3.2011 13:39, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@freebsd.org> >>>> ?wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg >>>>> open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in the >>>>> same >>>>> location!) but that shouldn't matter. >>>>> >>>>> There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the >>>>> sleep/btcoex >>>>> mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what happens. >>>> >>>> ? also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of ?int >>>> ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) >>>> ? hw.c helps >> >> please add this ?before 2016, 2017 lines >> >> +pCap->tx_chainmask = 0x1; >> +pCap->rx_chainmask =0x1; >>>> > > I did that now the data stream seems to be going through antenna 0: > > 12:35:22.783976 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 126dB signal antenna 0 [bit > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > 12:35:22.784021 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 0dB signal antenna 0 [bit > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > 12:35:22.784064 599348660933us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -78dB signal antenna 0 [bit > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > 12:35:22.784109 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -123dB signal antenna 0 > [bit 14] CF +QoS DA:... > 12:35:22.784153 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 2dB signal antenna 0 [bit > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > However, I'm still receiving beacons through antenna 1: not much idea, probably we cannot change the rx mask i think. we can only change the tx mask? I heard this some senior eng saying this, but not sure. need to dig deep. > > 12:35:23.781184 599349658003us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -54dB signal > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > 12:35:23.985982 599349862803us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > 12:35:24.190791 599350067603us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > 12:35:24.298133 599350174394us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -76dB signal > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > > (btw, if you look at the signal levels on the topmost capture, they just > look insane. Could the reason be my setup: one interface is in station mode > transferring data, and other interface in monitor mode, watching the packet > flow. Is it possible TX is interfering RX signal measurements?) > > - Jussi > > >>>> >>>> 2016 ? ? ? ? tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; >>>> 2017 ? ? ? ? rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; >>>> >>> >>> Ok, thanks, I'll try with these changes. >>> >>> - Jussi >>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com> >>>>> ?wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a setup in which I can connect only one >>>>>> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way >>>>>> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not >>>>>> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump >>>>>> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries >>>>>> to use both antennas even though there is only one >>>>>> antenna connected. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've read from earlier posts that this could be >>>>>> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this >>>>>> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) >>>>>> also? If I do this, does this have any side >>>>>> effects? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jussi >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org >>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-09 15:14 ` Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-09 16:04 ` Adrian Chadd 2011-03-10 6:16 ` Jussi Haakana 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Adrian Chadd @ 2011-03-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel I didn't think the radiotap knew about MIMO. :) It's possible you're being told about the "old" antenna selection/information stuff. Adrian On 9 March 2011 23:14, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com> > wrote: > > On 9.3.2011 14:29, Mohammed Shafi wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 9.3.2011 13:39, Mohammed Shafi wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@freebsd.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg > >>>>> open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in > the > >>>>> same > >>>>> location!) but that shouldn't matter. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the > >>>>> sleep/btcoex > >>>>> mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what > happens. > >>>> > >>>> also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of int > >>>> ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) > >>>> hw.c helps > >> > >> please add this before 2016, 2017 lines > >> > >> +pCap->tx_chainmask = 0x1; > >> +pCap->rx_chainmask =0x1; > >>>> > > > > I did that now the data stream seems to be going through antenna 0: > > > > 12:35:22.783976 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 126dB signal antenna 0 > [bit > > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > 12:35:22.784021 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 0dB signal antenna 0 > [bit > > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > 12:35:22.784064 599348660933us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -78dB signal antenna 0 > [bit > > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > 12:35:22.784109 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -123dB signal antenna 0 > > [bit 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > 12:35:22.784153 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 2dB signal antenna 0 > [bit > > 14] CF +QoS DA:... > > > > However, I'm still receiving beacons through antenna 1: > > not much idea, probably we cannot change the rx mask i think. we can > only change the tx mask? > I heard this some senior eng saying this, but not sure. need to dig deep. > > > > > 12:35:23.781184 599349658003us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -54dB signal > > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > > 12:35:23.985982 599349862803us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal > > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > > 12:35:24.190791 599350067603us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal > > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > > 12:35:24.298133 599350174394us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -76dB signal > > antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... > > > > (btw, if you look at the signal levels on the topmost capture, they just > > look insane. Could the reason be my setup: one interface is in station > mode > > transferring data, and other interface in monitor mode, watching the > packet > > flow. Is it possible TX is interfering RX signal measurements?) > > > > - Jussi > > > > > >>>> > >>>> 2016 tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; > >>>> 2017 rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ok, thanks, I'll try with these changes. > >>> > >>> - Jussi > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a setup in which I can connect only one > >>>>>> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way > >>>>>> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not > >>>>>> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump > >>>>>> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries > >>>>>> to use both antennas even though there is only one > >>>>>> antenna connected. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've read from earlier posts that this could be > >>>>>> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this > >>>>>> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) > >>>>>> also? If I do this, does this have any side > >>>>>> effects? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Jussi > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list > >>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > >>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list > >>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > >>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ath9k-devel mailing list > >>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > >>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > >>> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110310/933cce44/attachment-0001.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-09 16:04 ` Adrian Chadd @ 2011-03-10 6:16 ` Jussi Haakana 2011-03-10 9:57 ` Adrian Chadd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jussi Haakana @ 2011-03-10 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On 9.3.2011 18:04, Adrian Chadd wrote: > I didn't think the radiotap knew about MIMO. :) > > It's possible you're being told about the "old" antenna selection/information stuff. Hmm. I think that receiving antenna is set in ath9k_rx_skb_preprocess() (recv.c:984) to ieee80211_rx_status from which it is then copied to radiotap by mac80211? - Jussi > > > Adrian > > On 9 March 2011 23:14, Mohammed Shafi<shafi.wireless at gmail.com<mailto:shafi.wireless@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana at 7signal.com<mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> wrote: >> On 9.3.2011 14:29, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana at 7signal.com<mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 9.3.2011 13:39, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd<adrian at freebsd.org<mailto:adrian@freebsd.org>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg >>>>>> open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in the >>>>>> same >>>>>> location!) but that shouldn't matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the >>>>>> sleep/btcoex >>>>>> mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what happens. >>>>> >>>>> also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of int >>>>> ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) >>>>> hw.c helps >>> >>> please add this before 2016, 2017 lines >>> >>> +pCap->tx_chainmask = 0x1; >>> +pCap->rx_chainmask =0x1; >>>>> >> >> I did that now the data stream seems to be going through antenna 0: >> >> 12:35:22.783976 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 126dB signal antenna 0 [bit >> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >> 12:35:22.784021 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 0dB signal antenna 0 [bit >> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >> 12:35:22.784064 599348660933us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -78dB signal antenna 0 [bit >> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >> 12:35:22.784109 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -123dB signal antenna 0 >> [bit 14] CF +QoS DA:... >> 12:35:22.784153 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 2dB signal antenna 0 [bit >> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >> >> However, I'm still receiving beacons through antenna 1: > > not much idea, probably we cannot change the rx mask i think. we can > only change the tx mask? > I heard this some senior eng saying this, but not sure. need to dig deep. > >> >> 12:35:23.781184 599349658003us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -54dB signal >> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >> 12:35:23.985982 599349862803us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal >> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >> 12:35:24.190791 599350067603us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal >> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >> 12:35:24.298133 599350174394us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -76dB signal >> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >> >> (btw, if you look at the signal levels on the topmost capture, they just >> look insane. Could the reason be my setup: one interface is in station mode >> transferring data, and other interface in monitor mode, watching the packet >> flow. Is it possible TX is interfering RX signal measurements?) >> >> - Jussi >> >> >>>>> >>>>> 2016 tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; >>>>> 2017 rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, thanks, I'll try with these changes. >>>> >>>> - Jussi >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana at 7signal.com<mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a setup in which I can connect only one >>>>>>> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way >>>>>>> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not >>>>>>> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump >>>>>>> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries >>>>>>> to use both antennas even though there is only one >>>>>>> antenna connected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've read from earlier posts that this could be >>>>>>> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this >>>>>>> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) >>>>>>> also? If I do this, does this have any side >>>>>>> effects? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jussi >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>> >> >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-10 6:16 ` Jussi Haakana @ 2011-03-10 9:57 ` Adrian Chadd 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Adrian Chadd @ 2011-03-10 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel It's set to whatever is in rs_antenna, which is: mac.c: rs->rs_antenna = MS(ads.ds_rxstatus3, AR_RxAntenna); I'm not sure what that represents on MIMO cards. Atheros people, any feedback? Adrian On 10 March 2011 14:16, Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com> wrote: > On 9.3.2011 18:04, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> I didn't think the radiotap knew about MIMO. :) >> >> It's possible you're being told about the "old" antenna >> selection/information stuff. >> > > Hmm. I think that receiving antenna is set in ath9k_rx_skb_preprocess() > (recv.c:984) to ieee80211_rx_status from which it is then copied > to radiotap by mac80211? > > - Jussi > >> >> >> Adrian >> >> On 9 March 2011 23:14, Mohammed Shafi<shafi.wireless@gmail.com<mailto: >> shafi.wireless at gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com >> <mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> wrote: >> >>> On 9.3.2011 14:29, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com >>>> <mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9.3.2011 13:39, Mohammed Shafi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@freebsd.org >>>>>> <mailto:adrian@freebsd.org>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've found a couple places that hard-code setting up both chains (eg >>>>>>> open-loop TX power control, which initialises it for both chains in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> location!) but that shouldn't matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's a function which sets the TX chainmask based on the >>>>>>> sleep/btcoex >>>>>>> mode, maybe you could try setting it to 0x1 there and see what >>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> also hardcoding to 0x1 in the function of int >>>>>> ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah) >>>>>> hw.c helps >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> please add this before 2016, 2017 lines >>>> >>>> +pCap->tx_chainmask = 0x1; >>>> +pCap->rx_chainmask =0x1; >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> I did that now the data stream seems to be going through antenna 0: >>> >>> 12:35:22.783976 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 126dB signal antenna 0 >>> [bit >>> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >>> 12:35:22.784021 599348659493us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 0dB signal antenna 0 >>> [bit >>> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >>> 12:35:22.784064 599348660933us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -78dB signal antenna 0 >>> [bit >>> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >>> 12:35:22.784109 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a -123dB signal antenna 0 >>> [bit 14] CF +QoS DA:... >>> 12:35:22.784153 599348660981us tsft 5240 MHz 11a 2dB signal antenna 0 >>> [bit >>> 14] CF +QoS DA:... >>> >>> However, I'm still receiving beacons through antenna 1: >>> >> >> not much idea, probably we cannot change the rx mask i think. we can >> only change the tx mask? >> I heard this some senior eng saying this, but not sure. need to dig deep. >> >> >>> 12:35:23.781184 599349658003us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -54dB signal >>> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >>> 12:35:23.985982 599349862803us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal >>> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >>> 12:35:24.190791 599350067603us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -75dB signal >>> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >>> 12:35:24.298133 599350174394us tsft 6.0 Mb/s 5240 MHz 11a -76dB signal >>> antenna 1 [bit 14] BSSID:... >>> >>> (btw, if you look at the signal levels on the topmost capture, they just >>> look insane. Could the reason be my setup: one interface is in station >>> mode >>> transferring data, and other interface in monitor mode, watching the >>> packet >>> flow. Is it possible TX is interfering RX signal measurements?) >>> >>> - Jussi >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> 2016 tx_chainmask = pCap->tx_chainmask; >>>>>> 2017 rx_chainmask = pCap->rx_chainmask; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Ok, thanks, I'll try with these changes. >>>>> >>>>> - Jussi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On 9 March 2011 18:48, Jussi Haakana<jussi.haakana@7signal.com >>>>>>> <mailto:jussi.haakana@7signal.com>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a setup in which I can connect only one >>>>>>>> antenna to AR9280 based card. Is there any way >>>>>>>> to force ath9k to use this antenna only? I'm not >>>>>>>> sure, but based on reported signal levels (tcpdump >>>>>>>> on monitor interface), it looks like the card tries >>>>>>>> to use both antennas even though there is only one >>>>>>>> antenna connected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've read from earlier posts that this could be >>>>>>>> done by forcing rx/tx chainmasks to 1, does this >>>>>>>> apply to current ath9k version (wireless-testing) >>>>>>>> also? If I do this, does this have any side >>>>>>>> effects? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Jussi >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ath9k-devel mailing list >>>>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org<mailto:ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20110310/ace90702/attachment.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? @ 2011-03-31 3:10 Matt Causey 2011-03-31 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Matt Causey @ 2011-03-31 3:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel Hello, So I am looking at building a system with one of these cards: http://www.embeddedworks.net/pdetail.php?mn=wlan&mid=mwlan2301&prod=wlan292 ....and I stumbled on this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org/msg05288.html I have the same question....is there some user-mode way to configure which antenna is in use? I can't imagine that it's a good plan for MIMO, but we may end up with a requirement to install only one antenna. Cheers, -- Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-31 3:10 Matt Causey @ 2011-03-31 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi 2011-03-31 12:05 ` Larry Vaden 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-31 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matt Causey <matt.causey@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > So I am looking at building a system with one of these cards: > > http://www.embeddedworks.net/pdetail.php?mn=wlan&mid=mwlan2301&prod=wlan292 > > ....and I stumbled on this thread: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org/msg05288.html > > I have the same question....is there some user-mode way to configure > which antenna is in use? ?I can't imagine that it's a good plan for > MIMO, but we may end up with a requirement to install only one > antenna. The user space iw command is iw phy <phyname> set antenna <bitmap> | all | <tx bitmap> <rx bitmap> but I understand the mac80211 callbacks(set_antenna (or) get_antenna) is not yet supported in ath9k. thanks, shafi > > Cheers, > > -- > Matt > _______________________________________________ > ath9k-devel mailing list > ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-31 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-31 12:05 ` Larry Vaden 2011-03-31 13:46 ` Mohammed Shafi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Larry Vaden @ 2011-03-31 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.ath9k@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matt Causey <matt.causey@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> So I am looking at building a system with one of these cards: >> >> http://www.embeddedworks.net/pdetail.php?mn=wlan&mid=mwlan2301&prod=wlan292 >> >> ....and I stumbled on this thread: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org/msg05288.html >> >> I have the same question....is there some user-mode way to configure >> which antenna is in use? ?I can't imagine that it's a good plan for >> MIMO, but we may end up with a requirement to install only one >> antenna. > > The user space iw command is > iw phy <phyname> set antenna <bitmap> | all | <tx bitmap> <rx bitmap> > but I understand the mac80211 callbacks(set_antenna (or) get_antenna) > is not yet supported in ath9k. > thanks, > shafi The very versatile Felix shows you how in the thread "how to config AR9280 for operation as 1X1 or other ideas" from a couple of days ago on this ml. -- Larry Vaden, CoFounder Internet Texoma, Inc. Serving Rural Texomaland Since 1995 We Care About Your Connection! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? 2011-03-31 12:05 ` Larry Vaden @ 2011-03-31 13:46 ` Mohammed Shafi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mohammed Shafi @ 2011-03-31 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath9k-devel On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Larry Vaden <vaden@texoma.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.ath9k@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matt Causey <matt.causey@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> So I am looking at building a system with one of these cards: >>> >>> http://www.embeddedworks.net/pdetail.php?mn=wlan&mid=mwlan2301&prod=wlan292 >>> >>> ....and I stumbled on this thread: >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org/msg05288.html >>> >>> I have the same question....is there some user-mode way to configure >>> which antenna is in use? ?I can't imagine that it's a good plan for >>> MIMO, but we may end up with a requirement to install only one >>> antenna. >> >> The user space iw command is >> iw phy <phyname> set antenna <bitmap> | all | <tx bitmap> <rx bitmap> >> but I understand the mac80211 callbacks(set_antenna (or) get_antenna) >> is not yet supported in ath9k. >> thanks, >> shafi > > The very versatile Felix shows you how in the thread "how to config > AR9280 for operation as 1X1 or other ideas" from a couple of days ago > on this ml. > Thanks! Yes i am aware of that, ofcourse configuring the chainmask via debug is the easy way, but have not i said we can permanently hack the code to configure chain masks as 1x1. Also the user further said he has some problems on receiving some beacons in chain 1 mode. I interpreted the user space as configuring via 'iw' command. This was taken from mac80211.h @set_antenna: Set antenna configuration (tx_ant, rx_ant) on the device. 1787) * Parameters are bitmaps of allowed antennas to use for TX/RX. Drivers may 1788) * reject TX/RX mask combinations they cannot support by returning -EINVAL 1789) * (also see nl80211.h @NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_ANTENNA_TX). 1790) * 1791) * @get_antenna: Get current antenna configuration from device (tx_ant, rx_ant). > -- > Larry Vaden, CoFounder > Internet Texoma, Inc. > Serving Rural Texomaland Since 1995 > We Care About Your Connection! > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-31 13:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-03-09 10:48 [ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna? Jussi Haakana
2011-03-09 11:02 ` Adrian Chadd
2011-03-09 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi
2011-03-09 11:51 ` Jussi Haakana
[not found] ` <AANLkTikpYwN2ebakhpQtR1zgyKm8xsoKqznEKgX4PZa_@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <4D777AE9.3020704@7signal.com>
2011-03-09 15:14 ` Mohammed Shafi
2011-03-09 16:04 ` Adrian Chadd
2011-03-10 6:16 ` Jussi Haakana
2011-03-10 9:57 ` Adrian Chadd
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-31 3:10 Matt Causey
2011-03-31 11:39 ` Mohammed Shafi
2011-03-31 12:05 ` Larry Vaden
2011-03-31 13:46 ` Mohammed Shafi
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.