On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 20:02 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Yeah so apparently the overhead involved in 256-QAM 5/6 (MCS 9)
> > results in lower effective bitrate than just using MCS 8 (unless
> > you're using 3 spatial streams).
> Ah. I took a - very brief - look at why this one is invalid and
> couldn't figure it out.
I don't know what I'm talking about. This was a miscommunication from
the systems team. I think it was because EVM targets were too high, but
LDPC fixes that, see below.
> > Sounds like a rate control or reporting bug then.
> > Please drop this.
> Ok, thanks.
Actually, can you apply the v2 (cfg80211: add bitrate for 20MHz MCS 9)
of this? Systems guys confirmed they use MCS 9 @ 20MHz when LDPC is
enabled. Also confirmed bitrate should be ok.