From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Flavio Leonel Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:57 -0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] sensitivity control for ath9k with mac80211 In-Reply-To: <51EC6B5B.5030400@candelatech.com> References: <2DF5040C00EDCD438915E297DC199E9232512664@CVA-MB001.centreville.ads.sparta.com> <51E92EA9.6000202@gmail.com> <51E940D7.1030607@gmail.com> <51E9436E.5060208@candelatech.com> <51E959E8.9010706@openwrt.org> <51EC6B5B.5030400@candelatech.com> Message-ID: <51ED11D9.9020401@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org We Can testing the IW command with txpower limit, but not the ar92xx response for this parameter ... i 'm looking finding one solution for this problem too in my network ..! can someone help us? thank for this ATT: Flavio Leonel > On 07/19/2013 05:53 PM, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >> 2013/7/19 Felix Fietkau : >>> On 2013-07-19 4:58 PM, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >>>> 2013/7/19 Ben Greear : >>>>> On 07/19/2013 06:36 AM, Flavio Leonel wrote: >>>>>> Ok i know that but the command iw not permited set sensitivity limit >>>>>> >>>>>> how i can seting this limit on atth9k , this question.. >>>>> I tried messing with this some months ago and got nowhere. I could >>>>> not figure any way to make the NIC ignore fainter signals, and I am >>>>> not sure it is possible to make the hardware do this... >>>>> >>>> At least 5k chips have a special register for CCA threshold >>>> configuration. Modern 9k chips have not inherited this register? >>> The CCA threshold is not the same as the threshold for signal detection. >>> In many ways, 5k and 9k cards have a somewhat similar set of registers >>> to configure various aspects of detection sensitivity. Some of those are >>> set in the initvals, some are controlled by ANI. >>> The main issue is that the driver does not expose any convenient knobs >>> to control this. >>> >> Yeah. It would be useful for developers to get delicate and operative >> control over Tx/Rx process (at least via debugfs). But I never faced >> with situations where this would be useful for end user. So, IMHO, >> even if somebody submit appropriate patches, they will not be >> accepted. > I do a lot of testing in cases where there are a few APs with signal level of around -70 to -85, > primarily due to not-that-great shielding, as well as APs in surrounding buildings. > > I'd like to be able to tune a NIC so that it just plain ignored those weak signals > to increase throughput with systems with much better signal quality. > > Thanks, > Ben > >