On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 12:23:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 07:48:46PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > sta.rssi is later used which is 'Fields valid for ver >= 4'
> > but it seems with the earlier zeroing the use here should be fine?
>
> Thanks! I missed that.
>
>
On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 07:48:46PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> sta.rssi is later used which is 'Fields valid for ver >= 4'
> but it seems with the earlier zeroing the use here should be fine?
Thanks! I missed that.
Testing suggests it makes more sense to keep the RSSI value which
was
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 10:07:21PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> There is an off-by-one in bwfm_update_node(). This function reads
> the tx_rate field from station information returned by firmware.
>
> According to a comment in the Linux driver, this field is valid
> for sta_info command
There is an off-by-one in bwfm_update_node(). This function reads
the tx_rate field from station information returned by firmware.
According to a comment in the Linux driver, this field is valid
for sta_info command versions >= 3.
