From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WlI5U-0005U7-9m for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 13:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: <537610EE.6050008@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 06:21:50 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: fix rssi reporting. References: <1400178894-26206-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <53760CEA.1000500@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Janusz Dziedzic Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" On 05/16/2014 06:16 AM, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > On 16 May 2014 15:04, Ben Greear wrote: >> >> >> On 05/16/2014 05:18 AM, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: >>> >>> On 15 May 2014 20:34, wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Ben Greear >>>> >>>> When the driver cannot provide proper rssi, mark >>>> status with RX_FLAG_NO_SIGNAL_VAL so that stack >>>> properly ignores it. >>>> >>> I think we should skip this one while we know rssi/rates. >>> They are correct for all packets between START_VALID and END_VALID flags. >> >> >> Skip what, the patch? With current code, you are sending packets up >> the tree without signal being set and yet without the flag set that says >> to ignore the (unset) signal value. >> > Didn't reproduce this yet, while we have this values saved when > START_VALID - rx status is an template in htt structure. > > struct ieee80211_rx_status *rx_status = &htt->rx_status; > > Are you sure you have all patches? > This could be passible if we will get first packet with only flag > END_VALID (not sure this is even possible). In case we get packets > with START valid before, we will use template correctly. In case we > will get packets with flags START and END valid we will also reports > this correctly. > Did you reproduce this with official firmware? > > BTW > your patch break rates info based also on htt->rx_status template. > > BR > Janusz I will test again without my patch, and if you think current code is correct, then just drop this patch and I'll retest everything when I move back to testing on kalle's tree. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k