Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Norik Dzhandzhapanyan writes: > Inserting the smoothing function here is motivated by what we see as > 'spikes' in rssi data under weak rssi conditions. Figured its best to > get rid of the 'bogus' data as close to the source as possible. Also > to minimize the impact on

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Adrian Chadd writes: > I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this, > but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in > mac80211. > > What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to > mac80211 so it shows up right

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Norik Dzhandzhapanyan writes: > Add support for per chain RSSI reporting w/smoothing. > > Signed-off-by: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan nor...@ethertronics.com > > > --- htt_rx.c.orig 2017-05-26 15:26:37.918504255 -0700 > +++ htt_rx.c2017-05-26 12:10:33.139809025 -0700 >

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

onal environment (cable) compared to the 3 dimensional environment (air). BR Matthias >> >> From: Ben Greear >> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting >> To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan, Adrian Chadd >> Cc: ath10k@lists.infr

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Thanks Michael for the explanation. It makes complete sense. Does the same concern then also apply to the existing functionality of the driver's assignment of the combined rssi to the status->signal variable? The submitted patch breaks nothing in the driver and adds the per chain feature

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

What I'm referring to is the real world case of an access point communicating with multiple stations. Take for example. an AP that has four stations attached to it with different average RSSIs: - Station 1: -45 - Station 2: -70 - Station 3: -50 - Station 4: -30 Now for argument's sake let

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

measuring on a single chain, or on all of the chains at once and adding the power? I think we would need more detailed reporting using a good third-party device before smoothing and RSSI. Thanks, Ben From: Ben Greear Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

On 05/27/2017 12:25 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan wrote: We see this inconsistent/incorrect reporting in our RF chamber. How different are the values, and did you sniff with a third-party device to see if it sees the same spikes in RSSI? Thanks, Ben Norik On 05/27/2017 09:39 AM, Adrian Chadd

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending? On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote: The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point. On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending? On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote: The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point. On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

We see this inconsistent/incorrect reporting in our RF chamber. Norik On 05/27/2017 09:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear wrote: At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding, maybe the on-air signal really is

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point. > On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear wrote: >> At low

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear wrote: > At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding, > maybe the on-air signal really is stronger? > > Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k > are > wrong? Hiya, So

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

iday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting [snip] hiya, I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this, but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is don

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

<adrian.ch...@gmail.com> on behalf of Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting [snip] hiya, I have something local that I've b

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

eebsd.org> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting [snip] hiya, I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this, but with no smoothing. Ideally (

Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

[snip] hiya, I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this, but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in mac80211. What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to

[PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting

Add support for per chain RSSI reporting w/smoothing. Signed-off-by: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan nor...@ethertronics.com --- htt_rx.c.orig 2017-05-26 15:26:37.918504255 -0700 +++ htt_rx.c2017-05-26 12:10:33.139809025 -0700 @@ -825,14 +825,71 @@ static bool ath10k_htt_rx_h_channel(stru