On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nick Kossifidis <mickfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/11/20 Brian Prodoehl <bprodo...@nomadio.net>: >> >> That sounds like great stuff. What does this look like to nl80211? >> Did you get the spur mitigation filters adjusted for the various >> modes? Are the rate tables now dependent on channel width, in >> addition to just the band? The CCK rates actually seem to work ok at >> 10MHz, but I found that the chip locks up hard if you try to do CCK on >> a 5MHz channel. Sadly, making the rate table depend on the channel >> width ended up in a whole lot of ugly when I tried that. >> > > a) No plans for nl80211 integration yet, we'll probably add some > debugfs entry or a module parameter for now > b) Yup at least i did what the algo suggested for spur mitigation, i > think i need to add some more checks though > c) No changes on rate tables, we just calculate the ack duration > differently to set up rate->duration table correctly > d) I don't know if you can play with CCK rates on 10MHz, i haven't > tried it and i don't know if it will work correctly
I guess given the options of a debugfs entry or a module parameter, a per-phy debugfs entry would probably be best, so you could have different cards in the same system at different channel widths. Have you tested at 2.4GHz? The spectrum analyzer exports are from 5GHz. Third-party drivers that support 5/10MHz channel operation lock you to the OFDM-only 802.11a rate table when using narrow channels in the 2.4GHz band. I found that the CCK rates do work at half the PLL rate, but not at quarter of the PLL rate. ACKs going out at 500Kbps is far from appealing, though, so probably in both cases (half and quarter width operation) forcing you to the 802.11a rate table is probably the way to go. _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
