On 2012-10-31 2:32 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 12:23 PM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>> Add 5% width tolerance for radar patterns defined by ETSI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurt...@neratec.com>
>> ---
>> .../net/wireless/ath/ath9k/dfs_pattern_detector.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/dfs_pattern_detector.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/dfs_pattern_detector.c
>> index 3b12914..24877b0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/dfs_pattern_detector.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/dfs_pattern_detector.c
>> @@ -42,10 +42,15 @@ struct radar_types {
>> #define MIN_PPB_THRESH 50
>> #define PPB_THRESH(PPB) ((PPB * MIN_PPB_THRESH + 50) / 100)
>> #define PRF2PRI(PRF) ((1000000 + PRF / 2) / PRF)
>> +/* percentage of pulse width tolerance */
>> +#define WIDTH_TOLERANCE 5
>> +#define WIDTH_LOWER(X) ((X*(100-WIDTH_TOLERANCE)+50)/100)
>> +#define WIDTH_UPPER(X) ((X*(100+WIDTH_TOLERANCE)+50)/100)
> ^^^
> Why are you adding 50 there? If you want to just add 5% tolerance, then
> the +50 is wrong there, but I do not know anything about radar patterns
> defined by ETSI.
I think the 50 is correct here. It's not the tolerance (which is already
included via WIDTH_TOLERANCE in that macro), it's to account for
rounding issues.
Having said that, I wonder if it shouldn't be -50 instead of +50 in
WIDTH_LOWER().
- Felix
_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
