This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
(12bf6f45d1703858)
Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
only a single PHY information packet for all the
subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c | 11 +++++++++++
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h | 1 +
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c
index f1dc040..2afc548 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c
@@ -725,6 +725,16 @@ il4965_hdl_rx(struct il_priv *il, struct il_rx_buf *rxb)
if (rate_n_flags & RATE_MCS_SGI_MSK)
rx_status.flag |= RX_FLAG_SHORT_GI;
+ if (phy_res->phy_flags & RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_AGG_MSK) {
+ /* We know which subframes of an A-MPDU belong
+ * together since we get a single PHY response
+ * from the firmware for all of them.
+ */
+
+ rx_status.flag |= RX_FLAG_AMPDU_DETAILS;
+ rx_status.ampdu_reference = il->_4965.ampdu_ref;
+ }
+
il4965_pass_packet_to_mac80211(il, header, len, ampdu_status, rxb,
&rx_status);
}
@@ -736,6 +746,7 @@ il4965_hdl_rx_phy(struct il_priv *il, struct il_rx_buf *rxb)
{
struct il_rx_pkt *pkt = rxb_addr(rxb);
il->_4965.last_phy_res_valid = true;
+ il->_4965.ampdu_ref++;
memcpy(&il->_4965.last_phy_res, pkt->u.raw,
sizeof(struct il_rx_phy_res));
}
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h
index 829d3b9..3b6c994 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h
@@ -1136,6 +1136,7 @@ struct il_wep_cmd {
#define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_NARROW_BAND_MSK cpu_to_le16(1 << 3)
#define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_ANTENNA_MSK 0x70
#define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_ANTENNA_POS 4
+#define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_AGG_MSK cpu_to_le16(1 << 7)
#define RX_RES_STATUS_SEC_TYPE_MSK (0x7 << 8)
#define RX_RES_STATUS_SEC_TYPE_NONE (0x0 << 8)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h
index 37fe553..96f2025 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h
@@ -1356,6 +1356,7 @@ struct il_priv {
struct {
struct il_rx_phy_res last_phy_res;
bool last_phy_res_valid;
+ u32 ampdu_ref;
struct completion firmware_loading_complete;
--
1.7.10.4
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> > (12bf6f45d1703858)
> >
> > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> > only a single PHY information packet for all the
> > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
> >
> > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
>
> ACK
OK, I'm confused...this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as
"[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status". But on the next day
(19 Jan) there was a patch posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU
status" that seems to be different. What a I missing? Is this the
right patch to merge?
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> (12bf6f45d1703858)
>
> Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> only a single PHY information packet for all the
> subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
>
> Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
ACK
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:13PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> > > > (12bf6f45d1703858)
> > > >
> > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> > > > only a single PHY information packet for all the
> > > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> > > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > ACK
> >
> > OK, I'm confused...
> Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.
>
> > this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as
> > "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status".
> > But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch
> > posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU
> > status" that seems to be different. What a I
> > missing?
> Nothing I hope.
>
> The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have
> the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after
> the RFC.
>
> Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and
> "iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because
> I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask
> vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that...
> "the definition in question has always been the same for all
> hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off
> to iwlegacy already."
>
> Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time,
> that's why it has a newer date.
>
> > Is this the right patch to merge?
> Yes.
Cool, thanks for the explanation!
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status".
> > > (12bf6f45d1703858)
> > >
> > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and
> > > only a single PHY information packet for all the
> > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the
> > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap.
> > >
> > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
> >
> > ACK
>
> OK, I'm confused...
Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.
> this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as
> "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status".
> But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch
> posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU
> status" that seems to be different. What a I
> missing?
Nothing I hope.
The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have
the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after
the RFC.
Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and
"iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because
I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask
vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that...
"the definition in question has always been the same for all
hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off
to iwlegacy already."
Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time,
that's why it has a newer date.
> Is this the right patch to merge?
Yes.
Best Regards,
Christian