Hi all,
I would like to ask Qualcomm's collaborators about this topic.
We are trying to certify a AP product which uses QCA988x radio module.
We are using the ath10k driver (kernel v3.17.8) and firmware from Ben
Greear. We are trying to pass the Dynamic Channel test, which consists
in setting the radio at 80MHz and, at the same time, setting other
signal in the secondary channel. So far, the radio module does not
reduce the bandwidth and remains transmitting at 80MHz.
Please, Does someone know if Dynamic Channel Access is really supported
by ath10k driver in newest kernel versions?
Or, does it also depends on the firmware version?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jose Delgado
On 26/03/15 07:30, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 25 March 2015 at 16:34, Jose Antonio Delgado Alfonso
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to ask Qualcomm's collaborators about this topic.
>>
>> We are trying to certify a AP product which uses QCA988x radio module.
>> We are using the ath10k driver (kernel v3.17.8) and firmware from Ben
>> Greear. We are trying to pass the Dynamic Channel test, which consists
>> in setting the radio at 80MHz and, at the same time, setting other
>> signal in the secondary channel. So far, the radio module does not
>> reduce the bandwidth and remains transmitting at 80MHz.
>>
>> Please, Does someone know if Dynamic Channel Access is really supported
>> by ath10k driver in newest kernel versions?
> You haven't really defined what kind of "other signal" you set up.
> ath10k sets/enables dynamic_bw wmi parameter in ath10k_start(). From
> what I know dynamic_bw does enable fw/hw to downgrade traffic from
> 80MHz to 40MHz in case there's other 802.11 traffic on the subband
> happening at least on 10.1.467 - not sure about non-802.11 traffic. I
> suppose newer firmware revisions do that too. I'm not sure about
> 999.999.0.636 though.
>
>
> Michał
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
I tested with other AP and also with a signal generator emitting a flat
noise of 20 MHz continuously.
I will check how function ath10k_start is implemented in my kernel tree
and if that parameter is really enabled on my setup.
Thanks.
Jose A. Delgado
On 25 March 2015 at 16:34, Jose Antonio Delgado Alfonso
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to ask Qualcomm's collaborators about this topic.
>
> We are trying to certify a AP product which uses QCA988x radio module.
> We are using the ath10k driver (kernel v3.17.8) and firmware from Ben
> Greear. We are trying to pass the Dynamic Channel test, which consists
> in setting the radio at 80MHz and, at the same time, setting other
> signal in the secondary channel. So far, the radio module does not
> reduce the bandwidth and remains transmitting at 80MHz.
>
> Please, Does someone know if Dynamic Channel Access is really supported
> by ath10k driver in newest kernel versions?
You haven't really defined what kind of "other signal" you set up.
ath10k sets/enables dynamic_bw wmi parameter in ath10k_start(). From
what I know dynamic_bw does enable fw/hw to downgrade traffic from
80MHz to 40MHz in case there's other 802.11 traffic on the subband
happening at least on 10.1.467 - not sure about non-802.11 traffic. I
suppose newer firmware revisions do that too. I'm not sure about
999.999.0.636 though.
Michał
On 03/25/2015 08:34 AM, Jose Antonio Delgado Alfonso wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to ask Qualcomm's collaborators about this topic.
>
> We are trying to certify a AP product which uses QCA988x radio module.
> We are using the ath10k driver (kernel v3.17.8) and firmware from Ben
> Greear. We are trying to pass the Dynamic Channel test, which consists
> in setting the radio at 80MHz and, at the same time, setting other
> signal in the secondary channel. So far, the radio module does not
> reduce the bandwidth and remains transmitting at 80MHz.
>
> Please, Does someone know if Dynamic Channel Access is really supported
> by ath10k driver in newest kernel versions?
> Or, does it also depends on the firmware version?
You could try testing with the upstream firmware and see if that works
any better? Even if it is unstable under load, it should at least
be able to run long enough to do a feature test like this.
If it works on 10.1.467 upstream firmware but not on mine, then probably it is a regression
and I should be able to fix it.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Jose Delgado
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com