From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleksij Rempel Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 08:50:42 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k_htc: add STBC TX support In-Reply-To: References: <1367482308-9882-1-git-send-email-linux@rempel-privat.de> <1367482308-9882-2-git-send-email-linux@rempel-privat.de> <5182A341.8050704@rempel-privat.de> <5182A9DC.6030203@openwrt.org> Message-ID: <5184AFC2.8060101@rempel-privat.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Am 02.05.2013 22:15, schrieb Adrian Chadd: > Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is handled. Does it mean, i should change this patch and provide a patch for firmware too? I still do not think, changing peer caps i a good idea in any case. I mena this part of patch: + if (sta->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_TX_STBC) + caps |= WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG; Behaviour with this patch will be fallowing: - peer provide caps, even if it is RX-STBC12 - we pass this information to firmware and ratecontroller of FW, do right decision based on hardware it has. You suggestion, if i understand it correctly, is to filter caps: - if peer provide more than we can, we should tell firmware the value what we can. So, if peer say it can RX-STBC12, we should tell firmware that peer is RX-STBC1. In my opinion, this kind of filter is a source for hidden errors. -- Regards, Oleksij