From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.115]:34451 "EHLO mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752851AbZBXETJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:19:09 -0500 Message-ID: <49A37531.70907@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20090224_051913_506663_61CB7114) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:18:57 -0600 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: Kalle Valo , Dan Williams , John Linville , wireless Subject: Re: Signal quality strange since commit 708c57cf1709fb95 References: <49A01922.1090106@lwfinger.net> <1235241867.3284.44.camel@localhost> <49A05E35.70904@lwfinger.net> <8763j33rgq.fsf@litku.valot.fi> (sfid-20090222_074023_562332_D346678B) <1235441441.4455.58.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1235441441.4455.58.camel@johannes.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 08:39 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Larry Finger writes: >> >>> I know how it works with drivers that implement their own ioctl >>> calls for the WEXT interface; however, the 3 that I mentioned all >>> use mac80211 and get their WEXT support through cfg80211. >> Yes, something is wrong now. I noticed the same problem (/70 in signal >> strength) when I was implementing rssi support for at76c50x-usb. > > Ok, so what exactly is the problem here? > > I intentionally changed it to be /70 rather than /100 so I didn't have > to do *100/70 in kernel space, and tools should cope with that (and > users too); is there a problem with how the XX (XX/70) gets calculated? No, I just wondered if it was intentional that it was changed to /70. It appears that it was, therefore, at least 3 drivers must be changed as they are calculating on the basis of /100. For example, my b43 is showing an iwconfig Link Quality of 93/70 while the KNM applet is showing 50%. Larry