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 1Zbxsz-0006MX-2s for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:35:33 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.149] (firewall.candelatech.com [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE3B340A539 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Greear Subject: Bug in CCK hw_rate definitions? Message-ID: <55F88F08.1000703@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:35:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 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: ath10k ath10k hw.h has this: enum ath10k_hw_rate_cck { ATH10K_HW_RATE_CCK_LP_11M = 0, ATH10K_HW_RATE_CCK_LP_5_5M, ATH10K_HW_RATE_CCK_LP_2M, ATH10K_HW_RATE_CCK_LP_1M, But, at least in 10.1 firmware, it appears that CCK hw_rates are 0x40, 0x41, etc (For those of you with firmware, see ar600P_phy.c, 'RC' column of the rate table.) Am I missing something or is the driver code just wrong? 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