[ath9k-devel] AR9280 with only one antenna?

[Jussi Haakana <jussi.haakana@7signal.com>]

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
>>
>>