Am 04.05.2013 12:02, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> On 2013-05-04 8:50 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Am 02.05.2013 22:15, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
>>> Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is
>>> handled.
>>
>> Does it mean, i should change this patch and provide a patch for
>> firmware too?
>> I still do not think, changing peer caps i a good idea in any case.
>> I mena this part of patch:
>> + if (sta->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_TX_STBC)
>> + caps |= WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG;
>>
>>
>> Behaviour with this patch will be fallowing:
>> - peer provide caps, even if it is RX-STBC12
>> - we pass this information to firmware and ratecontroller of FW, do
>> right decision based on hardware it has.
>>
>> You suggestion, if i understand it correctly, is to filter caps:
>> - if peer provide more than we can, we should tell firmware the value
>> what we can. So, if peer say it can RX-STBC12, we should tell firmware
>> that peer is RX-STBC1.
>> In my opinion, this kind of filter is a source for hidden errors.
> I think the discussion regarding RX-STBC12 vs RX-STBC1 is purely
> hypothetical. The hardware that this firmware was designed for only
> supports sending STBC for MCS0-7. This will not change.
>
> Also, there's no reason to tell the firmware about both rx and tx STBC
> capabilities, the only thing it needs to know is what tells the rate
> control part to enable/disable STBC.
As you can see, in version 2 of this path there was no more discussion
about it. I just did it.
> In addition to that, using the WLAN_RC_* flags is wrong, you need to use
> the ATH_RC_* flags, as this is what ath_rate_newassoc_11n checks for in
> the firmware.
Renamed.
> The only STBC related flag that actually gets used (when
> passed from the driver) is ATH_RC_RX_STBC_FLAG.
Well, may be it is not used at the end. But it is present on some places
in the firmware.
For example here:
void
rcSibUpdate_11n(struct ath_softc_tgt *sc, struct ath_node_target *pSib,
A_UINT32 capflag, A_BOOL keepState, struct
ieee80211_rate *pRateSet)
{
rcSibUpdate_ht(sc,
pSib,
((capflag & ATH_RC_DS_FLAG) ? WLAN_RC_DS_FLAG
: 0) |
((capflag & ATH_RC_HT40_SGI_FLAG) ?
WLAN_RC_HT40_SGI_FLAG : 0) |
((capflag & ATH_RC_HT_FLAG) ? WLAN_RC_HT_FLAG
: 0) |
((capflag & ATH_RC_CW40_FLAG) ? WLAN_RC_40_FLAG
: 0) |
((capflag & ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG) ?
WLAN_RC_STBC_FLAG : 0),
keepState,
pRateSet);
So, should i remove ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG from my patch?
--
Regards,
Oleksij
_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
