lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mac80211: Fix wrong channel bandwidths reported for aggregates
Date
Linus Lüssing <ll@simonwunderlich.de> writes:

> On 19/07/2022 17:03, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> It's not a hardware bug. Dating back to the original AR5416 11n chip,
>> most flags aren't valid for subframes in an aggregate. Only the final
>> frame has valid flags. This was explicitly covered internally way back
>> when.
>
> Ah, thanks for the clarification! I see it in the datasheet for the
> QCA9531, too, now. And thanks for the confirmation, that what we are
> doing so far is not correct for ath9k.
>
> Words 0+2 are valid for all RX descriptors, 0+2+11 valid for the last RX
> descriptor of each packet and 0-11 for the last RX descriptor of an
> aggregate or last RX descriptor of a stand-alone packet. Or in other
> words, word 4, which contains the 20 vs. 40 MHz indicator, is invalid
> for any aggregate sub-frame other than the last one. I can rename that
> in the commit message.
>
>
> Another approach that also came to my mind was introducing more explicit
> flags in cfg80211.h's "struct rate_info", like a RATE_INFO_BW_UNKNOWN in
> "enum rate_info_bw" and/or RATE_INFO_FLAGS_UNKNOWN in "enum
> rate_info_flags". And setting those flags in ath9k_cmn_process_rate().
>
> The current approach is smaller though, as it simply uses the already
> existing flags. If anyone has any preferences, please let me know.

I have no objections to doing it in mac80211 like you're proposing here :)

-Toke

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-20 12:58    [W:1.021 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site