All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k_htc: add STBC TX support
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 08:50:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5184AFC2.8060101@rempel-privat.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=XYK=Jkc40U_vJO03n+tiA_LDpw8e1QKYRX6-+E9o4fA@mail.gmail.com>

Am 02.05.2013 22:15, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
> Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is handled.

Does it mean, i should change this patch and provide a patch for 
firmware too?
I still do not think, changing peer caps i a good idea in any case.
I mena this part of patch:
+               if (sta->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_TX_STBC)
+                       caps |= WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG;


Behaviour with this patch will be fallowing:
- peer provide caps, even if it is RX-STBC12
- we pass this information to firmware and ratecontroller of FW, do 
right decision based on hardware it has.

You suggestion, if i understand it correctly, is to filter caps:
- if peer provide more than we can, we should tell firmware the value 
what we can. So, if peer say it can RX-STBC12, we should tell firmware 
that peer is RX-STBC1.
In my opinion, this kind of filter is a source for hidden errors.
-- 
Regards,
Oleksij

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>,
	ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k_htc: add STBC TX support
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 08:50:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5184AFC2.8060101@rempel-privat.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=XYK=Jkc40U_vJO03n+tiA_LDpw8e1QKYRX6-+E9o4fA@mail.gmail.com>

Am 02.05.2013 22:15, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
> Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is handled.

Does it mean, i should change this patch and provide a patch for 
firmware too?
I still do not think, changing peer caps i a good idea in any case.
I mena this part of patch:
+               if (sta->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_TX_STBC)
+                       caps |= WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG;


Behaviour with this patch will be fallowing:
- peer provide caps, even if it is RX-STBC12
- we pass this information to firmware and ratecontroller of FW, do 
right decision based on hardware it has.

You suggestion, if i understand it correctly, is to filter caps:
- if peer provide more than we can, we should tell firmware the value 
what we can. So, if peer say it can RX-STBC12, we should tell firmware 
that peer is RX-STBC1.
In my opinion, this kind of filter is a source for hidden errors.
-- 
Regards,
Oleksij

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-04  6:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-02  8:11 [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 0/2] work sync Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02  8:11 ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02  8:11 ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k_htc: add STBC TX support Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02  8:11   ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02 16:55   ` [ath9k-devel] " Adrian Chadd
2013-05-02 16:55     ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-02 17:32     ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02 17:32       ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02 18:01       ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2013-05-02 18:01         ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-02 20:15         ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-02 20:15           ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-04  6:50           ` Oleksij Rempel [this message]
2013-05-04  6:50             ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04  6:55             ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04  6:55               ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 10:02             ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-04 10:02               ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-04 11:08               ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 11:08                 ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 11:16                 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-04 11:16                   ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-04 11:28                   ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 11:28                     ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 14:49                   ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-04 14:49                     ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-04 17:50                   ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-04 17:50                     ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-04 18:29                     ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 18:29                       ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04  7:33           ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v2] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04  7:33             ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04  8:44             ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 10:59           ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 10:59             ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 11:32           ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v4] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-04 11:32             ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02 20:32         ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02 20:32           ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02  8:11 ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ath9k: remove useless flag conversation Oleksij Rempel
2013-05-02  8:11   ` Oleksij Rempel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5184AFC2.8060101@rempel-privat.de \
    --to=linux@rempel-privat.de \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.