On 2010-06-26 8:47 AM, Alphan Ulusoy wrote: > Dear Felix, > > Thank you for your reply, as I was going over the code yesterday I've > changed several parts and also the part your first patch covers. > However I have also felt that beacon staggering is somewhat > problematic. I've made a total of 4 changes and ad-hoc beacons work > now: > > 1) Applied your second patch. > > 2) Disabled beacon staggering by setting ATH_BCBUF (ath9k.h) to 1. I > believe, this covers your second patch. Unnecessary, with my patch, as long as the opmode is set to ad-hoc, it will use a beacon interval that will only leave one beacon slot active anyway.
> 3) main.c:ath9k_bss_info_changed() calls ath_beacon_alloc() when > called by mac80211. However, ath_beacon_alloc() honors the > sc->sc_ah->opmode field for deciding which beacon config function to > run while ath9k_bss_info_changed() does not update this field from > vif->type. Thus, I've added the following at line 2051 of > main.c:ath9k_bss_info_changed(). "ah->opmode = vif->type;" sc->ah->opmode should have been set by the code that is called when the interface is brought up, setting it from ath9k_bss_info_changed() is definitely wrong. > 4) beacon.c:ath_beacon_config_adhoc() relies on sc->beacon.bc_tstamp > field to determine the next beacon time. However, during > initialization I've found this field to be very large in number > causing the first beacon to suffer a long delay causing problems in > association. Maybe this field is missing the required initialization > somewhere? Instead, I've added the following at line 752 of beacon.c > so that first beacon is sent sooner. "nexttbtt = tsftu + 5*intval;" It's normal for this to be large, however maybe this needs some range checking against the local tsf. The intention behind using bc_tstamp is that the hardware syncs its own TSF against the one from the beacon automatically. > After these modifications ad-hoc beacons work just fine, beacon > tasklet is called appropriately and I did not observe any missed > beacons. I would like to hear your comments especially regarding > points 3, 4. I'd suggest testing a recent version of mac80211/ath9k before taking another look at any of the changes that you made. - Felix _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
