> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 12:12:18 +0200 > From: Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> > > This should make scans on iwn(4) more reliable. > > At present the calculation of 'passive' in iwn_get_passive_dwell_time() > serves no purpose because iwn_limit_dwell() ignores its second parameter. > This looks like an accident. > > Effectively, this diff extends channel dwell time during passive scans > by 20ms on 2Ghz and by 10ms on 5GHz, on top of the default dwell time > of 100ms. Given that most APs use a beacon interval of 100ms, these > small extensions could make the difference between catching a beacon > and not catching it. > > In if_iwnreg.h there's even a comment which says: > * For the most reliable scan, set > AP beacon interval (typically 100msec). > > ok?
ok kettenis@ > diff 1afff35ce04b6804bc4ca370e3ec3962d8a5f38a /usr/src > blob - c7bc1ddd8dc8f2637094971d01a3c2915c4ab628 > file + sys/dev/pci/if_iwn.c > --- sys/dev/pci/if_iwn.c > +++ sys/dev/pci/if_iwn.c > @@ -4703,7 +4703,7 @@ iwn_limit_dwell(struct iwn_softc *sc, uint16_t dwell_t > return (MIN(IWN_PASSIVE_DWELL_BASE, ((bintval * 85) / 100))); > > /* No association context? Default */ > - return (IWN_PASSIVE_DWELL_BASE); > + return dwell_time; > } > > uint16_t > >
