From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add wireless statics to bcm43xx-d80211 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:54:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1156319644.3629.25.camel@ux156> References: <44E07AA4.8040309@lwfinger.net> <20060822160957.61a4e9ba@griffin.suse.cz> <44EB7403.10705@lwfinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Benc , John Linville , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:13536 "EHLO sipsolutions.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751451AbWHWHxv (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:53:51 -0400 To: Larry Finger In-Reply-To: <44EB7403.10705@lwfinger.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 16:15 -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > >> + int maxssi; > > > > Why is maxssi here? Can it really change between received frames? > > No it cannot change between frames; however, the max value can be very different for different > drivers using d80211. On the bcm43xx, it is 60; whereas 100 seems to be a better value for the > rt2x00 chips. Adding it here seemed like a good way to handle this situation. Do you suggest > something else? I think the question was intended to be: "why is it in ieee80211_rx_status and not in struct ieee80211_hw?" > Again to pass the differing values for different drivers. Ditto here. Just stick it into struct ieee80211_hw instead. > > I would suggest using -110 dBm as a floor (to be compatible with RCPI > > definition, see mail from Simon Barber describing it). Or is there any > > particular reason for -104 dBm? > > It is the value previously used in the softmac version of bcm43xx. A value of -110 would obviously > be better. Who maintains the softmac version now? :P I'd suggest to just change it there too for consistency. johannes