[PATCH] ath10k: fix rssi reporting.

[Ben Greear]

On 05/16/2014 06:21 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/16/2014 06:16 AM, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
>> On 16 May 2014 15:04, Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/16/2014 05:18 AM, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15 May 2014 20:34,  <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the driver cannot provide proper rssi, mark
>>>>> status with RX_FLAG_NO_SIGNAL_VAL so that stack
>>>>> properly ignores it.
>>>>>
>>>> I think we should skip this one while we know rssi/rates.
>>>> They are correct for all packets between START_VALID and END_VALID flags.
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip what, the patch?  With current code, you are sending packets up
>>> the tree without signal being set and yet without the flag set that says
>>> to ignore the (unset) signal value.
>>>
>> Didn't reproduce this yet, while we have this values saved when
>> START_VALID - rx status is an template in htt structure.
>>
>> struct ieee80211_rx_status *rx_status = &htt->rx_status;
>>
>> Are you sure you have all patches?
>> This could be passible if we will get first packet with only flag
>> END_VALID (not sure this is even possible). In case we get packets
>> with START valid before, we will use template correctly. In case we
>> will get packets with flags START and END valid we will also reports
>> this correctly.
>> Did you reproduce this with official firmware?
>>
>> BTW
>> your patch break rates info based also on htt->rx_status template.
>>
>> BR
>> Janusz
> 
> I will test again without my patch, and if you think current code is
> correct, then just drop this patch and I'll retest everything when I
> move back to testing on kalle's tree.

I tested again without my patch, and the graph looks smooth against
my attenuator's settings, so looks like my patch is not needed.

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com