On 26/01/18 15:20, Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > Am 26.01.2018 um 15:16 schrieb Wojciech Dubowik: >> >> >> On 26/01/18 12:42, Sebastian Gottschall wrote: >>> i have a idea what one cause could ne >>> >>> + nfval = >>> + ath9k_hw_get_nf_limits(ah, chan)->cal[i]; >>> + if (nfval > -60 || nfval < -127) >>> + nfval = default_nf; >>> >> This is just a check to make sure we have sane calibrated values. Anything >> above -60 or under -127 will not work so >> we take nominal value. > yes. but that means all < -127 and all > -60 catches it. this is the full > value range. the check is wrong > everything is above -60 and bellow -127 at the same time. OR must ne AND
Not really. Note the negative numbers. -60 is a bigger value than -127. The expressions states that all values from -127 to -60 are valid. BR Matthias
