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.
>
> Testing suggests it makes more sense to keep the RSSI value which
> was discovered during the scan phase.
>
> With the new patch below ifconfig shows -51dBm.
> With the previous patch ifconfig showed -70dBm for the same AP (with
> client/AP location unchanged).
ok jsg@
>
> diff /usr/src
> commit - 9badb9ad8932c12f4ece484255eb2703a2518c17
> path + /usr/src
> blob - 0c9c948115a0c115a43bd365ad4e389ba694c4a8
> file + sys/dev/ic/bwfm.c
> --- sys/dev/ic/bwfm.c
> +++ sys/dev/ic/bwfm.c
> @@ -703,22 +703,24 @@ bwfm_update_node(void *arg, struct ieee80211_node *ni)
> if (!IEEE80211_ADDR_EQ(ni->ni_macaddr, sta.ea))
> return;
>
> - if (le16toh(sta.ver) < 4)
> + if (le16toh(sta.ver) < 3)
> return;
>
> flags = le32toh(sta.flags);
> if ((flags & BWFM_STA_SCBSTATS) == 0)
> return;
>
> - rssi = 0;
> - for (i = 0; i < BWFM_ANT_MAX; i++) {
> - if (sta.rssi[i] >= 0)
> - continue;
> - if (rssi == 0 || sta.rssi[i] > rssi)
> - rssi = sta.rssi[i];
> + if (le16toh(sta.ver) >= 4) {
> + rssi = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < BWFM_ANT_MAX; i++) {
> + if (sta.rssi[i] >= 0)
> + continue;
> + if (rssi == 0 || sta.rssi[i] > rssi)
> + rssi = sta.rssi[i];
> + }
> + if (rssi)
> + ni->ni_rssi = rssi;
> }
> - if (rssi)
> - ni->ni_rssi = rssi;
>
> txrate = le32toh(sta.tx_rate); /* in kbit/s */
> if (txrate == 0xffffffff) /* Seen this happening during association. */
>
>
