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:
Am 04.05.2013 08:50, schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
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
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
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?
On 2013-05-04 1:08 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
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
Am 04.05.2013 13:16, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
On 2013-05-04 1:08 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
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
On 4 May 2013 04:16, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
So, should i remove ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG from my patch?
I extensively reviewed this part, and it's really crazy. Here's what
happens:
ath_rate_newassoc_11n takes ATH_RC_* flags, converts them to WLAN_RC_*.
rcSibUpdate_11n interprets
Am 04.05.2013 19:50, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
I've just reviewed it myself:
* oan-stbc is enabled only if the hardware itself supports STBC; so
it's an extra sanity check in case the firmware is told to enable STBC
in the WMI capflag field.
all STBC parts are not compiled for AR9271. Currently
current firmware will enable STBC_TX, only if other peer support it.
This patch provide ht_peer_caps to firmware.
FW versions 1.3, 1.4 should be able to work with it.
Tested on ar7010+ar9280 and ar7010+ar9287.
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel li...@rempel-privat.de
---
Am 02.05.2013 18:55, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
On 2 May 2013 01:11, Oleksij Rempel li...@rempel-privat.de wrote:
+#define WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG 0x20 /* TX STBC */
+#define WLAN_RC_RX_STBC_FLAG 0xC0 /* RX STBC ,2 bits */
I thought we covered this; why are you marking two bits here?
becouse
On 2013-05-02 7:32 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
Am 02.05.2013 18:55, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
On 2 May 2013 01:11, Oleksij Rempel li...@rempel-privat.de wrote:
+#define WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG 0x20 /* TX STBC */
+#define WLAN_RC_RX_STBC_FLAG 0xC0 /* RX STBC ,2 bits */
I thought we covered this; why
Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is handled.
Adrian
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Hi Felix,
thank you for your explanation and being pation with me.
I learn it by my self and keywords you gave help me to find needed
information. So, i continue to digg in to google books and wikis now.
I see now, that my initial assumption that STBC some thing like
frequency diversity is
13 matches
Mail list logo
