Re: Missing link quality with wireless-testing

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 07:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:

> > >   - max_qual.level == 0 (ie, dBm values)
> > 
> > That is an area where NM (= 0) and mac80211 (= -110) do not agree.
> 
> Then mac80211 is not conforming to WEXT...  unless it's setting
> IW_QUAL_DBM in the updated field, which it probably is.

Yeah, it is.

> Before we added IW_QUAL_DBM, the switch between dBm and RSSI was
> max_qual.level; if it was 0, level was in dBm, because no cards in use
> in Linux at that time could support a signal of more 0 dBm.  Thus, if it
> was over 0, the value was in RSSI.
> 
> Here's the relevant bit of wireless.h:
> 
>         /* Quality range (link, level, noise)
>          * If the quality is absolute, it will be in the range [0 ; max_qual],
>          * if the quality is dBm, it will be in the range [max_qual ; 0].
> 
> That doc never got updated for IW_QUAL_DBM either.

Fun. But what did I expect. I withdraw my earlier patch then.

> NM doesn't really handle IW_QUAL_DBM (added in WE-19).  Mainly because
> stuff worked without it, and it wasn't implemented in drivers until
> quite recently.  NM should handle IW_QUAL_DBM.

Does all that mean that we cannot actually get this working right now
without adding back qual.qual? Or should we just remove IW_QUAL_DBM?

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]