[ath9k-devel] Question about IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK in ath_9k

[ath9k-devel] Question about IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK in ath_9k

[Daniel Smith]

2011/12/19 ?? <gang.li@watchdata.com>:
>
> Hi, Daniel, Thanks you !
>
> Sorry,  I didn't make it clear!  My 9280 is an USB card, so the related code
> is htc_drv_*.c.

No worries, I just was not aware of any USB devices with the 9280 in
it and the ath9k_htc "supported chips" are the 9271 and 7010.


> I have seen these codes in tx.c,  and at first I thought it should work, but
> does not.

So will assume you dealt with this then.

I have not done a lot of delving into the ath9k_htc code myself and I
am not familiar with interfacing with the chips via USB. Normally with
a 9280 where the tx ctrl descriptors are DMA'ed in I just need to make
sure that bit 24 of the third tx ctrl descriptor is set to 1. I did a
cursory look at how a frame is handed from kernel down to hardware and
the hardware control is done through flags set on a struct
tx_frame_hdr. I looked at the flags defined for ath9k_htc and I see no
sign of a flag to control ACK's. So I think this has to be punted to
one of the Atheros guys or someone with the spec sheets that can say
if there is a bit in the flags field to turn off ACK.

Sorry I couldn't be much more help.

Daniel

[ath9k-devel] Question: ieee80211_rx called twice after one ieee80211_subif_start_xmit call

[李刚]

Hi sirs,

	Today, I noticed that when an data frame is sent by
ieee80211_subif_start_xmit, then ieee80211_rx will be called twice , first
is an Acknowledgement frame and second is the response data frame.  Is this
the normal case?   It seems the RA frame is nonsense and just be freed in
ieee80211_rx_monitor.

	Is there anyway to tell the hardware not report RA frame to
mac80211?


Thanks very much!

Li gang

[ath9k-devel] Question: ieee80211_rx called twice after one ieee80211_subif_start_xmit call

[Adrian Chadd]

2011/12/30 ?? <gang.li@watchdata.com>:
> Hi sirs,
>
>        Today, I noticed that when an data frame is sent by
> ieee80211_subif_start_xmit, then ieee80211_rx will be called twice , first
> is an Acknowledgement frame and second is the response data frame.  Is this
> the normal case?   It seems the RA frame is nonsense and just be freed in
> ieee80211_rx_monitor.
>
>        Is there anyway to tell the hardware not report RA frame to
> mac80211?

.. its receiving ACKs? I thought it only did that when either promisc
or control was enabled. Try fiddling around with the RX filter bitmask
and see if you can determine (for your NIC :) which filter bit is
doing it.

Maybe the interface is in promisc mode in hostap mode and this is why
you're seeing ACKs.


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] 答复: Question: ieee80211_rx called twice after one ieee80211_subif_start_xmit call

[李刚]

> -----????-----
> ???: adrian.chadd at gmail.com [mailto:adrian.chadd at gmail.com] ?? Adrian
> Chadd
> ????: 2011?12?30? 17:31
> ???: ??
> ??: linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org; Ath9k Devel List
> ??: Re: Question: ieee80211_rx called twice after one
> ieee80211_subif_start_xmit call
> 
> 2011/12/30 ?? <gang.li@watchdata.com>:
> > Hi sirs,
> >
> >        Today, I noticed that when an data frame is sent by
> > ieee80211_subif_start_xmit, then ieee80211_rx will be called twice ,
first
> > is an Acknowledgement frame and second is the response data frame.  Is
this
> > the normal case?   It seems the RA frame is nonsense and just be freed
in
> > ieee80211_rx_monitor.
> >
> >        Is there anyway to tell the hardware not report RA frame to
> > mac80211?
> 
> .. its receiving ACKs? I thought it only did that when either promisc
> or control was enabled. Try fiddling around with the RX filter bitmask
> and see if you can determine (for your NIC :) which filter bit is
> doing it.
> 
> Maybe the interface is in promisc mode in hostap mode and this is why
> you're seeing ACKs.

Adrian? Thank you very much.

You reminded me that the RX filter is not correct, Yes, I almost forget that
I have changed the RX filter in ieee80211_configure_filter :

new_flags |= FIF_PROMISC_IN_BSS;

and the mode is STATION. 

What I want is to make two devices communicate directly without creating an
BSS or IBSS in advance, just using a wildcard BSSID instead.  But if setting
the RX flag as normal case 0 in STATION mode, the hardware can receive
noting. I don't know what's the matter. May be an BSSID must be set to the
hardware?  

> 
> 
> Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Question about duration of data frame in ath9k_htc

[李刚]

Hi Sirs,

	From wireshark, I noticed that when send an data frame , the
duration of frame control is fixed at 60 , no matter the frame length is 100
bytes or 1000 bytes.

	It seems this value is calculated in firmware and should be correct.
But I don't know why. And this value can be set in mac80211?


Thanks in advance!

Li gang

[ath9k-devel] Question about duration of data frame in ath9k_htc

[Sujith Manoharan]

?? wrote:
> 	From wireshark, I noticed that when send an data frame , the
> duration of frame control is fixed at 60 , no matter the frame length is 100
> bytes or 1000 bytes.
> 
> 	It seems this value is calculated in firmware and should be correct.
> But I don't know why. And this value can be set in mac80211?

Duration calculation is broken for ath9k_htc.
See: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ath9k_htc#TODO

Sujith