now the test result. yes. it assocs with VHT160 SGI in my case. but
performance is as expected identical to VHT80
Am 14.02.2017 um 00:12 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/13/2017 02:48 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 13.02.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottsch
On 02/13/2017 02:48 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 13.02.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
Am 13.02.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160
Am 13.02.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would not
make any sense.
the max
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 11:42 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 11:37 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > > > This was recently added to the VHT capabilities in the spec,
> > > > see
> > > > Table 9-250 in 802.11-2016.
> > > I don't have that spec...maybe you could post a patch that adds
> > > t
On 02/13/2017 11:37 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
This was recently added to the VHT capabilities in the spec, see
Table 9-250 in 802.11-2016.
I don't have that spec...maybe you could post a patch that adds that
flag and/or other fields to the appropriate header files? I can
attempt to add suppo
> > This was recently added to the VHT capabilities in the spec, see
> > Table 9-250 in 802.11-2016.
> I don't have that spec...maybe you could post a patch that adds that
> flag and/or other fields to the appropriate header files? I can
> attempt to add support to ath10k after that...
We're pl
.. or give us a legit way to acquire the 2016 spec? :)
Curious implementers want to know!
-a
On 13 February 2017 at 11:21, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 02/12/2017 11:06 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:58 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it appears that the ath10k QCA9984
On 02/12/2017 11:06 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:58 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
So, it appears that the ath10k QCA9984 4x4 160Mhz chip can do 4x4
MIMO at VHT80, but
it can do only 2x2 MIMO at VHT160/80+80.
When configuring a peer, we need to tell the firmware the number of
spa
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:58 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> So, it appears that the ath10k QCA9984 4x4 160Mhz chip can do 4x4
> MIMO at VHT80, but
> it can do only 2x2 MIMO at VHT160/80+80.
>
> When configuring a peer, we need to tell the firmware the number of
> spatial streams
> of the peer at VHT160
Am 12.02.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/12/2017 02:56 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 Februar
On 02/12/2017 02:56 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote
Am 11.02.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160
On 02/11/2017 10:21 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would not
make any sense.
the max
Am 11.02.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would
not
make any sense.
the maximum tx / rx rate for 4x4 vht80 and 2x2 vht160 is id
On 02/10/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would not
make any sense.
the maximum tx / rx rate for 4x4 vht80 and 2x2 vht160 is identical. so
vht160 would not increase perform
On 10 February 2017 at 20:22, Sebastian Gottschall
wrote:
> i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would not
> make any sense.
> the maximum tx / rx rate for 4x4 vht80 and 2x2 vht160 is identical. so
> vht160 would not increase performance in any way
Well, if it can also d
i really can't believe this. if this is true the 160 mhz mode would not
make any sense.
the maximum tx / rx rate for 4x4 vht80 and 2x2 vht160 is identical. so
vht160 would not increase performance in any way
Am 10.02.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Ben Greear:
So, it appears that the ath10k QCA9984 4x4
On 02/10/2017 03:23 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Is it limited on both tx and rx or only one?
Both, as I understand it. I think maybe we could use the max-tx-rate and
max-rx-rate
fields in the vht mcs info field to give user-space a clue.
Thanks,
Ben
Adrian
On Feb 10, 2017 2:58 PM, "Ben Gre
So, it appears that the ath10k QCA9984 4x4 160Mhz chip can do 4x4 MIMO at
VHT80, but
it can do only 2x2 MIMO at VHT160/80+80.
When configuring a peer, we need to tell the firmware the number of spatial
streams
of the peer at VHT160 and at VHT80 and lower. They are not the same value.
I cannot
21 matches
Mail list logo
