On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:45:02PM -0800, Galen wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Galen wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> MRC is supported on all 11n chipsets, but not for cck rates. > >>> TX beamforming is only supported on the shiny new AR93xx > >>> chipsets. TX beamforming seems to have been supported on > >>> some old legacy chipset but there is no code to support it > >>> and I wouldn't bother trying. > >>> > >>> Luis > >> > >> > >> Luis - can you comment on the MRC implementation? Is this entirely > >> invisible to ath9k, or is this implemented / supported in software? > > > > No, frankly this is the first time I read about MRC. > > I just poked a few guys here about MRC and got the clarification > > above. > > Right - so the MRC functionality is in the chip's DSP and entirely > invisible to the software? Yes? Just being 100% clear here...
Beats me. I haven't dealt with MRC at all in software so I guess. > >> And to be clear, you think the 802.11n chipsets before the > >> AR9300 *do not* include TxBF at all? Not that it simply isn't > >> supported by the drivers? > > > > Only a legacy (802.11g) end of life'd device had some form > > of Tx beamforming, but that's not even supported and its easier > > to just assume no chipset supports it other than the shiny > > new AR93xx family. > > Right - and as discussed, TxBF has less benefit than with 802.11n. Oh? > Since then, I have looked at some Matlab simulations here and seeing > that 2 antenna MRC can slightly outperform 2 antenna TxBF. Good to know, can you publish your results while at it. Luis _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
