From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail30g.wh2.ocn.ne.jp ([220.111.41.239]:27694 "HELO mail30g.wh2.ocn.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751239Ab0IOHcg (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:32:36 -0400 Received: from vs3000.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (125.206.180.163) by mail30g.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 3-0200975953 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:32:34 +0900 (JST) From: Bruno Randolf To: Jonathan Guerin Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [ath5k] Incorrect value for ACK_TIMEOUT Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:32:46 +0900 Cc: Kalle Valo , ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, "linux-wireless" , Nick Kossifidis References: <871v8v5vd2.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201009151632.46340.br1@einfach.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed September 15 2010 16:27:01 Jonathan Guerin wrote: > So, we would prefer to match the spec for an out-of-the-box build, > even tho it would appear to be a worse-performing driving to users? sure, we need to comply to the specs. bruno > -- > Jonathan Guerin > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Jonathan Guerin writes: > >>> the thing is, like bob said, that we don't really know much about what > >>> the HW expects in some of these registers, so unless you can prove > >>> your changes to be correct - e.g. by measurements which fit the > >>> theoretical model better, or by better thruput, it's hard to say if > >>> they are correct or not. > >>> > >>> so before you worry about how to make a correct patch, just go ahead > >>> and change those initvals to what you believe they should be. if it > >>> improves something, let's talk about how to correctly fix it. > >> > >> I don't mean to be a smart-ass, but wouldn't setting the correct > >> values here decrease the throughput? I'm not quite sure how to verify > >> an improvement, other than get the card to contend for the medium with > >> another known-working card? Does this sound reasonable? > > > > Yes, it does sound reasonable. You might get throughput increase by > > violating the spec. > > > > -- > > Kalle Valo