I don't think it is correct to say periodic calibration does not
happen with
ath10k. Maybe very old wave-1 firmware has some issues, but recent
stuff appears
to work. I do see reported noise floor changing on 9984.
like on qca998x i expect it to change at least every 300 seconds. thats
the
On 12/18/2019 12:05 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
Don't mean to steal your thread here, but since it's being discussed--
is there something that can be done to provide more accurate/precise
data? Use of the default is widespread so not a reason to hold back
the patch imo, but with a proposed
On 18/12/2019, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
>
> Am 18.12.2019 um 03:37 schrieb Ben Greear:
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2019 06:12 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
>>> i dont know what you want to compare here.
>>>
>>> 1. you compare 2 different wifi chipsets. both have different
>>> sensititivy and overall
Am 18.12.2019 um 09:05 schrieb Justin Capella:
Don't mean to steal your thread here, but since it's being discussed--
is there something that can be done to provide more accurate/precise
data? Use of the default is widespread so not a reason to hold back
the patch imo, but with a proposed
Don't mean to steal your thread here, but since it's being discussed--
is there something that can be done to provide more accurate/precise
data? Use of the default is widespread so not a reason to hold back
the patch imo, but with a proposed pcap-ng capture information block
they would become
Am 18.12.2019 um 03:37 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 12/17/2019 06:12 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
i dont know what you want to compare here.
1. you compare 2 different wifi chipsets. both have different
sensititivy and overall output power spec
2. both have different amount of antenna
On 12/17/2019 06:12 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
i dont know what you want to compare here.
1. you compare 2 different wifi chipsets. both have different sensititivy and
overall output power spec
2. both have different amount of antenna chains. which does make a difference
in input
i dont know what you want to compare here.
1. you compare 2 different wifi chipsets. both have different
sensititivy and overall output power spec
2. both have different amount of antenna chains. which does make a
difference in input sensitivity
3. the patch ben made has no effect on
On 12/17/19 3:37 PM, Tom Psyborg wrote:
also noticed now that the noise floor changes with signal strength as
described in this bug report:
https://www.mail-archive.com/ath10k@lists.infradead.org/msg11553.html
after wifi restart
iwinfo:
signal: -59dBm noise: -108dBm
then goes to
signal:
also noticed now that the noise floor changes with signal strength as
described in this bug report:
https://www.mail-archive.com/ath10k@lists.infradead.org/msg11553.html
after wifi restart
iwinfo:
signal: -59dBm noise: -108dBm
then goes to
signal: -52dBm noise: -103dBm
and finally drops to
On 17/12/2019, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 12/17/19 10:29 AM, Tom Psyborg wrote:
>> On 17/12/2019, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> On 12/17/19 8:23 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
per band (2/5).
>>>
>>> I looked at using the real noise
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 10:29, Tom Psyborg wrote:
>
> On 17/12/2019, Ben Greear wrote:
> > On 12/17/19 8:23 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
> >> I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
> >> per band (2/5).
> >
> > I looked at using the real noise floor. Our radio was
On 12/17/19 10:29 AM, Tom Psyborg wrote:
On 17/12/2019, Ben Greear wrote:
On 12/17/19 8:23 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
per band (2/5).
I looked at using the real noise floor. Our radio was reporting a noise
floor of
On 17/12/2019, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 12/17/19 8:23 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
>> I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
>> per band (2/5).
>
> I looked at using the real noise floor. Our radio was reporting a noise
> floor of around -102,
> where the hard-coded
On 12/17/19 8:23 AM, Justin Capella wrote:
I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
per band (2/5).
I looked at using the real noise floor. Our radio was reporting a noise floor
of around -102,
where the hard-coded default is -95. This of course would make the
I believe someone recently submitted a patch that defined noise floors
per band (2/5).
Can't say I'm a fan of the hacky code, in particular the if/else for
min/max // maybe abs(a-b)?
if (e40 != 0x80) { // whats this case about?
Are there reasons to not use log?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:59
currently debugging in your code, but i already have seen that the
values are wrong now for this chipset
Thanks for testing. I'll add a check for 0 and ignore that value
too. That seem OK?
i tested already the 0 check and it works
Were the per-chain values OK?
on 9984 i see no
On 12/17/2019 04:32 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
result of my tests
on qca988x rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb_ht is always zero. so you need to add a
additional check
Am 17.12.2019 um 13:02 schrieb Sebastian Gottschall:
i see a issue in your patch for qca988x chipsets
+if
result of my tests
on qca988x rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb_ht is always zero. so you need to
add a additional check
Am 17.12.2019 um 13:02 schrieb Sebastian Gottschall:
i see a issue in your patch for qca988x chipsets
+ if (rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb_ht != 0x80) {
+ status->signal =
i see a issue in your patch for qca988x chipsets
+ if (rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb_ht != 0x80) {
+ status->signal = ATH10K_DEFAULT_NOISE_FLOOR +
+ rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb_ht;
+ }
this is always true for qca988x, but the field is not provided on
From: Ben Greear
This makes per-chain RSSI be more consistent between HT20, HT40, HT80.
Instead of doing precise log math for adding dbm, I did a rough estimate,
it seems to work good enough.
Tested on ath10k-ct 9984 firmware.
Signed-off-by: Ben Greear
---
21 matches
Mail list logo
