On 09/24/2014 11:23 PM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 18:30, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/24/2014 08:05 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 16:35, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/24/2014 12:51 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 02:26, <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
+static struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap ath10k_create_vht_cap(struct ath10k
*ar,
+ bool
use_cfg_chains)
{
struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = {0};
u16 mcs_map;
int i;
+ int nrf = ar->num_rf_chains;
+
+ if (use_cfg_chains && ar->cfg_tx_chainmask)
+ nrf = get_nss_from_chainmask(ar->cfg_tx_chainmask);
Is use_cfg_chains really necessary here? Is setting tx/rx chainmask to
0x0 make any sense at all? Shouldn't we deny it or make it fallback to
the supported tx/rx chainmask values?
It would cause the logic to flip back to the defaults, so seems mildly
useful. I'm not sure
upper layers would ever let it be < 1 though.
0 is a valid argument as far as upper layers are concerned and should
be treated as "use all available antennas" (see `iw list` output
before ever setting antenna, after setting to, e.g. 1 and then to 0).
This implies current set_antenna() implementation is actually buggy
(pdev param should involve using supp_tx/rx_chainmask). Your
assumption in recent patches is also incorrect as antenna mask = 0
should imply max nss, not 1.
I tested this using:
iw phy wiphy1 set antenna 0 0
This flips it back to 3x3 (I had previously configured it for 2x2),
so I think the patches are working properly.
Mea culpa. It will flip back indeed.
But I still don't see why use_cfg_chains is necessary. I don't see how
cfg_tx_chainmask could be non-zero when ath10k is registering to mac.
I was thinking we might want to re-register someday, like after loading
a new firmware, or tuning firmware differently so that the vdev limits
changed.
If you are sure we currently only register once per module load, then
I agree that use_cfg_chains should not be needed currently.
But, considering my desire to allow to re-register in the future, I'd
prefer the patch to remain as is unless you disagree.
Thanks,
Ben
Michał
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
