On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:11:07AM -0400, thus spake Bob Copeland:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 05:37:07PM +0200, Ignacy Gawedzki wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 05:30:28PM +0200, thus spake Ignacy Gawedzki:
> > > And what does it take to implement ANI on ath5k, based on the code in
> > > madwifi?
>
> Not a whole lot - a quick way to get it implemented is to just move
> ath9k's implementation to ath.ko and use it directly. Nick had some
> pacthes going back at least a year to implement it based on the ANI
> patent -- it's in the archives, but will need forward porting and
> fixing.
If that code is basically already there for ath9k, how comes the urge to adapt
it to ath5k didn't surface up to now? Is it a question of priority in the
things to work on, or simply that ANI won't change much such situations as
mine?
> > Besides, if that's the fault of the lack of ANI in ath5k, then shouldn't we
> > observe much worse performance in infrastructure mode as well (at least in
> > noisy environments)?
>
> Indeed, that suggests another test - do you see the same in infrastructure
> mode?
I'd don't currently have a 802.11g AP to test it with. I did some tests
putting one of the atheros card in master mode with hostapd, still with
mediocre throughputs, but I doubt you could draw meaningful conclusions from
such a setup.
I'll try to do some tests with a 802.11g AP as soon as I lay my hand on one.
Thanks for your suggestions.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
_______________________________________________
ath5k-devel mailing list
ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
