Yes, you are right, I got that after finding out the difference and
printing it.
I want to measure the contention in the wireless medium.
I am trying to get it in the transmission path (Access Point is using ath9k
.
I understand what you said, but reading the RX/TX registers might not be
good as th
Hi all,
I've done an updated build of the ath9k_htc firmware images. I don't
currently have a HTC setup working so this is just a recompilation of
the current firmware.
http://dev.qca.qualcomm.com/~adrian/htc/20121128/
Please let me know if it works or doesn't work for you.
T
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 05:26:14PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > > > That "if supported" here is pretty problematic. There's no way to know.
> > > > Feature flag maybe?
> >
> > Hmm, I could certainly add a WIPHY_FLAG for that.
>
> nl80211 feature flag would be better
>
OK, that would work
.. what do you mean "sent with them in xmit". Do you mean, fetch the
FCS that the hardware has calculated?
If so, I have no idea. I don't think it works that way, at least not
on the sender side.
adrian
On 28 November 2012 11:00, Kamran Nishat wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> How can I get FCS of MPDUs
Hi Adrian,
How can I get FCS of MPDUs sent with them in xmit. Is it possible to get
the FCS of BA also.
Regards,
Kamran
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Hi,
On 28 November 2012 01:21, abhinav narain wrote:
> hi Adrian,
> this never struck me, but I saw
> ath9k_hw_txstart() in ath_tx_txqaddbuf() [in ath9k/xmit.c] and looks like
> the function when packet starts to transmit (it writes to a register.
> Can't I take this value instead of back calcul
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:06 +, Malinen, Jouni wrote:
> >FWIW, right now our plan for iwlwifi is to only really support it with
> >the P2P Device wdev, but I'm not sure what implications that has in
> >terms of support for GAS/ANQP etc. We might have to revisit that.
>
> GAS/ANQP is pre-associ
On 11/28/12 8:57 AM, "Johannes Berg" wrote:
>>>BTW, is there any limitation to remain on channel commands, like will
>>>they
>> >work on AP ifaces, Ad-Hoc ifaces, MultiSSID in general, etc?
>>
>> I hope not. There may be some practical issues with not all drivers
>> supporting this, but remain
> >Anyway, you'd suggest to use the NL80211 remain on channel command for
> >that?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Or add a new "spectral scan" nl80211 command to do a spectral scan on this
> >(or multiple) channels, and use the various functions from
> >mac80211/offchannel.c?
>
> I would rather add a flag to th
On 11/28/12 8:12 AM, "Simon Wunderlich"
wrote:
>Hmm, that would be possible as well ... Using the scan function is very
>convenient as I don't have to think about cycling, channel lists, etc.
>But putting more control to userspace is also possible, if we can ask the
>driver to just have a "quic
> > > That "if supported" here is pretty problematic. There's no way to know.
> > > Feature flag maybe?
>
> Hmm, I could certainly add a WIPHY_FLAG for that.
nl80211 feature flag would be better
> > > Also, there are scan flags now. However, I don't see that this should
> > > (ab)use the scan f
Hey Jouni,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:29:36PM +, Malinen, Jouni wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/12 7:19 AM, "Simon Wunderlich"
> wrote:
>
> >The main reason why I wanted to use this function is that it can be used
> >while operation, that is sending power save, forbidding payload tx, etc.
>
> Have
On 11/28/12 7:19 AM, "Simon Wunderlich"
wrote:
>The main reason why I wanted to use this function is that it can be used
>while operation, that is sending power save, forbidding payload tx, etc.
Have you looked at the remain-on-channel commands?
>It seems there is no way to trigger a scan fro
Hello Johannes,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:43:36PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 20:01 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > > This flag indicates that a spectrum scan is requested, if supported.
> >
> > That "if suppo
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 20:01 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > This flag indicates that a spectrum scan is requested, if supported.
>
> That "if supported" here is pretty problematic. There's no way to know.
> Feature flag maybe?
>
> Also,
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 20:01 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> This flag indicates that a spectrum scan is requested, if supported.
That "if supported" here is pretty problematic. There's no way to know.
Feature flag maybe?
Also, there are scan flags now. However, I don't see that this should
(ab)u
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:24:21PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> [...]
>
> When I ran the test, the throughput degradation was so big that the
> links became almost useless. It was a long time ago, so maybe this was
> caused by another bug that has been fixed since. I will run another test
> with t
hi Adrian,
this never struck me, but I saw
ath9k_hw_txstart() in ath_tx_txqaddbuf() [in ath9k/xmit.c] and looks like
the function when packet starts to transmit (it writes to a register.
Can't I take this value instead of back calculate the time at which packet
is at tx fifo head ?
-Abhinav
On S
18 matches
Mail list logo
