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 1WlKCF-0004wx-HD for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:37:20 +0000 Message-ID: <53763097.6020201@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 08:36:55 -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> <537610EE.6050008@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: <537610EE.6050008@candelatech.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Janusz Dziedzic Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" On 05/16/2014 06:21 AM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > 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. I tested again without my patch, and the graph looks smooth against my attenuator's settings, so looks like my patch is not needed. 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