Add support for per chain RSSI reporting w/smoothing.
Signed-off-by: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan [email protected]
--- htt_rx.c.orig 2017-05-26 15:26:37.918504255 -0700
+++ htt_rx.c 2017-05-26 12:10:33.139809025 -0700
@@ -825,14 +825,71 @@ static bool ath10k_htt_rx_h_channel(stru
return true;
}
+/*
+ * Signal data is somewhat glitchy. We smooth it out here with
+ * a 16 point moving average by storing samples in a buffer.
+ * As new samples come in, remove the oldest and add the newest
+ * to the running sum. Avoids changes/impact to other generic averaging.
+ */
+
+/* Moving average buffer */
+#define MA_SAMPLES (16)
+
+struct ma_buffer
+{
+ int count;
+ int head;
+ int tail;
+ int sum;
+ int samps[MA_SAMPLES];
+};
+
+struct ma_buffer ma_buffers[IEEE80211_MAX_CHAINS] =3D {{ 0 }};
+
+static int ath_cb_moving_average(struct ma_buffer *mb, int8_t samp)
+{
+ if (mb->count < MA_SAMPLES) {
+ mb->count++;
+ mb->sum +=3D samp;
+ mb->tail =3D 0;
+ } else {
+ int oldest =3D mb->samps[mb->tail];
+ mb->tail =3D (mb->head =3D=3D MA_SAMPLES - 1) =
? 0 : mb->head + 1;
+ mb->sum =3D mb->sum - oldest + samp;
+ }
+
+ mb->samps[mb->head] =3D samp;
+ mb->head =3D (mb->head =3D=3D MA_SAMPLES - 1) ? 0 : mb->head =
+ 1;
+
+ return (mb->sum / mb->count);
+}
+
static void ath10k_htt_rx_h_signal(struct ath10k *ar,
struct ieee80=
211_rx_status *status,
struct htt_rx=
_desc *rxd)
{
- /* FIXME: Get real NF */
- status->signal =3D ATH10K_DEFAULT_NOISE_FLOOR +
- rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb;
- status->flag &=3D ~RX_FLAG_NO_SIGNAL_VAL;
+ int i;
+
+ for(i=3D0;i<IEEE80211_MAX_CHAINS;i++)
+ {
+ status->chains &=3D ~BIT(i);
+
+ if (rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_chains[i].pri20_mhz !=3D 0x80)
+ {
+ int8_t rssi =3D ATH10K_DEFAULT_NOISE_FLOOR +
+ rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_chains[i].pri20_mhz;
+
+ status->chains |=3D BIT(i);
+
+ /* Compute the moving average of rssi */
+ status->chain_signal[i] =3D ath_cb_moving_=
average(&ma_buffers[i], rssi);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* FIXME: Get real NF */
+ status->signal =3D ATH10K_DEFAULT_NOISE_FLOOR +
+ rxd->ppdu_start.rssi_comb;
+ status->flag &=3D ~RX_FLAG_NO_SIGNAL_VAL;
}
static void ath10k_htt_rx_h_mactime(struct ath10k *ar,
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending?
On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote:
> The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which woul=
d be needed for any use when configured as an access point.
>
>> On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain enco=
ding,
>>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>>
>>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath=
10k
>>> are
>>> wrong?
>> Hiya,
>>
>> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates =3D=3D weaker TX signal, TPC, etc ar=
e
>> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
>> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
>> its really obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>> -adrian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath10k mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
What I'm referring to is the real world case of an access point communicating with multiple stations.
Take for example. an AP that has four stations attached to it with different average RSSIs:
- Station 1: -45
- Station 2: -70
- Station 3: -50
- Station 4: -30
Now for argument's sake let us assume that all four stations are transmitting at equal amounts and for every 16 frames transmitted each station sends 4 frames.
Since the moving average you are proposing averages all frames received by the driver, that works out to a moving average that will always be around -48.75 for this example. For station 2, this will result in a 21.25 error from its actual average RSSI.
This example also doesn't take into account other frames that aren't from stations that are processed through to the driver, such as Beacon frames, which even will affect managed mode and not just Access Points. The only way an average RSSI could be calculated accurately is that for every unique MAC address identified a structure has to be created to store the moving average RSSI data for that peer. This becomes extremely bulky memory-wise. Alternatively, it could be implemented such that it only applies to managed mode and only when the peer identified is the currently connected BSSID.
> On May 27, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending?
>
>
> On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote:
>> The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point.
>>
>>> On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
>>>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>>>
>>>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k
>>>> are
>>>> wrong?
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates == weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
>>> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
>>> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
>>> its really obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -adrian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ath10k mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
>
> The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be disclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ethertronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternatively, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
Hi Adrian,
Inserting the smoothing function here is motivated by what we see as 'spike=
s' in rssi data under weak rssi conditions. Figured its best to get rid of=
the 'bogus' data as close to the source as possible. Also to minimize the =
impact on the changes.
I believe the averaging that happens at higher levels is based on EWMA mac=
ros in net/mac80211/sta_info.c which not wifi card/chipset specific. Didn't=
want to touch that since other cards seem to not have this spikey behavior=
. And, it doesnt seem to have an effect on the ath10k data anyway (iw repor=
ts the exact same values for both).
I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass a module load time parameter whi=
ch would indicate an average factor with 0 (as default) to indicate no aver=
aging?
Another option would be to add the chain_signal_avg field to the ieee80211_=
tx_status struct in mac80211.h to expose the average value up the stack thi=
s way? I haven't looked too deep on what this entails though and I didn't w=
ant to risk impacting anything else.
So yes.. I am OK with the per-chain RSSI changes first.
Norik
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Adrian C=
hadd <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM
To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting
[snip]
hiya,
I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this,
but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in
mac80211.
What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to
mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to
express the smoothing in mac80211 or further up the layers?
(We care about packet-to-packet RSSI values for "reasons" - mostly
bring-up and board validation, but also for runtime link checks.)
-adrian
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
Thanks Michael for the explanation. It makes complete sense.
Does the same concern then also apply to the existing functionality of the driver's assignment of the combined rssi to the status->signal variable?
The submitted patch breaks nothing in the driver and adds the per chain feature which currently does not exist. I agree the averaging component could be factored for a more generic application, but at the same time the change impact would be larger and this is what I wanted to avoid. The averaging function can be qualified by a module parameter which will make the patch impact benign to others that are looking for per chain rssi reporting functionality.
Norik
On 05/27/2017 03:10 PM, Michael Ney wrote:
> What I'm referring to is the real world case of an access point communicating with multiple stations.
>
> Take for example. an AP that has four stations attached to it with different average RSSIs:
>
> - Station 1: -45
> - Station 2: -70
> - Station 3: -50
> - Station 4: -30
>
> Now for argument's sake let us assume that all four stations are transmitting at equal amounts and for every 16 frames transmitted each station sends 4 frames.
>
> Since the moving average you are proposing averages all frames received by the driver, that works out to a moving average that will always be around -48.75 for this example. For station 2, this will result in a 21.25 error from its actual average RSSI.
>
> This example also doesn't take into account other frames that aren't from stations that are processed through to the driver, such as Beacon frames, which even will affect managed mode and not just Access Points. The only way an average RSSI could be calculated accurately is that for every unique MAC address identified a structure has to be created to store the moving average RSSI data for that peer. This becomes extremely bulky memory-wise. Alternatively, it could be implemented such that it only applies to managed mode and only when the peer identified is the currently connected BSSID.
>
>
>> On May 27, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending?
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote:
>>> The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point.
>>>
>>>> On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
>>>>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k
>>>>> are
>>>>> wrong?
>>>> Hiya,
>>>>
>>>> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates == weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
>>>> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
>>>> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
>>>> its really obvious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -adrian
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ath10k mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
>> The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be disclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ethertronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternatively, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath10k mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
[snip]
hiya,
I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this,
but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in
mac80211.
What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to
mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to
express the smoothing in mac80211 or further up the layers?
(We care about packet-to-packet RSSI values for "reasons" - mostly
bring-up and board validation, but also for runtime link checks.)
-adrian
At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k are
wrong?
Thanks,
Ben
On 05/26/2017 07:09 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Inserting the smoothing function here is motivated by what we see as 'spikes' in rssi data under weak rssi conditions. Figured its best to get rid of the 'bogus' data as close to the source as possible. Also to minimize the impact on the changes.
>
> I believe the averaging that happens at higher levels is based on EWMA macros in net/mac80211/sta_info.c which not wifi card/chipset specific. Didn't want to touch that since other cards seem to not have this spikey behavior. And, it doesnt seem to have an effect on the ath10k data anyway (iw reports the exact same values for both).
>
> I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass a module load time parameter which would indicate an average factor with 0 (as default) to indicate no averaging?
>
> Another option would be to add the chain_signal_avg field to the ieee80211_tx_status struct in mac80211.h to expose the average value up the stack this way? I haven't looked too deep on what this entails though and I didn't want to risk impacting anything else.
>
> So yes.. I am OK with the per-chain RSSI changes first.
>
> Norik
>
>
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Adrian Chadd <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM
> To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting
>
> [snip]
>
> hiya,
>
> I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this,
> but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in
> mac80211.
>
> What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to
> mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to
> express the smoothing in mac80211 or further up the layers?
>
> (We care about packet-to-packet RSSI values for "reasons" - mostly
> bring-up and board validation, but also for runtime link checks.)
>
>
> -adrian
>
> The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be disclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ethertronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternatively, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Norik Dzhandzhapanyan <[email protected]> writes:
> Inserting the smoothing function here is motivated by what we see as
> 'spikes' in rssi data under weak rssi conditions. Figured its best to
> get rid of the 'bogus' data as close to the source as possible. Also
> to minimize the impact on the changes.
>
> I believe the averaging that happens at higher levels is based on EWMA
> macros in net/mac80211/sta_info.c which not wifi card/chipset
> specific. Didn't want to touch that since other cards seem to not have
> this spikey behavior. And, it doesnt seem to have an effect on the
> ath10k data anyway (iw reports the exact same values for both).
>
> I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass a module load time
> parameter which would indicate an average factor with 0 (as default)
> to indicate no averaging?
I don't know what Johannes thinks, but in my opinion this kind of
smoothing should be in mac80211 and not in drivers. The driver should be
as simple as possible.
--=20
Kalle Valo=
Is there an enhanced or conflicting patch pending?
On 05/27/2017 10:56 AM, Michael Ney wrote:
> The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which woul=
d be needed for any use when configured as an access point.
>
>> On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain enco=
ding,
>>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>>
>>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath=
10k
>>> are
>>> wrong?
>> Hiya,
>>
>> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates =3D=3D weaker TX signal, TPC, etc ar=
e
>> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
>> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
>> its really obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>> -adrian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath10k mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> writes:
> I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this,
> but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in
> mac80211.
>
> What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to
> mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to
> express the smoothing in mac80211 or further up the layers?
I think this is a good approach.
--=20
Kalle Valo=
I've been looking at this more and I believe that smoothing/filtering anywh=
ere other than as close as possible to where the ppdu gets unpacked will ha=
ve the disadvantage of being negatively influenced by 'out of band' values =
since the average is not computed or averaged in the upper layers until inv=
oked from their callers? The possibility then exists for several 'out of ba=
nd' values to make their way to the upper layers if the queries happen to c=
oincide with bad values being fed from the hardware unfiltered from ppdu un=
packing.
The ath10k_htt_rx_h_channel function considers every rx event and has a 100=
% likelihood of successfully cleaning up the data.
Because of this, I think a reasonable approach would be to introduce a modu=
le parameter that can be set to a filter value with 0 as the default or no =
filter/smooth function applies.
Does something like this seem reasonable?
** in core.h
int ath10k_chain_rssi_avg;
** in core.c
module_param(ath10k_rssi_chain_avg,int,0644);
MODULE_PARAM_DESC(ath10k_chain_rssi_avg, "Running average/filter of immedia=
te per chain rssi value");
** in htt_rx.c
allocate space based on ath10k_chain_rssi_avg, do the average and cleanup
Norik
On 05/26/2017 07:09 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Inserting the smoothing function here is motivated by what we see as 'spi=
kes' in rssi data under weak rssi conditions. Figured its best to get rid o=
f the 'bogus' data as close to the source as possible. Also to minimize the=
impact on the changes.
>
> I believe the averaging that happens at higher levels is based on EWMA m=
acros in net/mac80211/sta_info.c which not wifi card/chipset specific. Didn=
't want to touch that since other cards seem to not have this spikey behavi=
or. And, it doesnt seem to have an effect on the ath10k data anyway (iw rep=
orts the exact same values for both).
>
> I wonder if it would be acceptable to pass a module load time parameter w=
hich would indicate an average factor with 0 (as default) to indicate no av=
eraging?
>
> Another option would be to add the chain_signal_avg field to the ieee8021=
1_tx_status struct in mac80211.h to expose the average value up the stack t=
his way? I haven't looked too deep on what this entails though and I didn't=
want to risk impacting anything else.
>
> So yes.. I am OK with the per-chain RSSI changes first.
>
> Norik
>
>
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Adrian=
Chadd <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:12 PM
> To: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per chain RSSI reporting
>
> [snip]
>
> hiya,
>
> I have something local that I've been meaning to push up to do this,
> but with no smoothing. Ideally (!) smoothing is done optionally in
> mac80211.
>
> What do you think about just committing the per-chain RSSI stuff to
> mac80211 so it shows up right now, and then we figure out how to
> express the smoothing in mac80211 or further up the layers?
>
> (We care about packet-to-packet RSSI values for "reasons" - mostly
> bring-up and board validation, but also for runtime link checks.)
>
>
> -adrian
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
The submitted code also doesn't appear to handle RSSI per-peer which would be needed for any use when configured as an access point.
> On May 27, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>
>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k
>> are
>> wrong?
>
> Hiya,
>
> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates == weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
> its really obvious.
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
We see this inconsistent/incorrect reporting in our RF chamber.
Norik
On 05/27/2017 09:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encod=
ing,
>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>
>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath1=
0k
>> are
>> wrong?
> Hiya,
>
> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates =3D=3D weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
> its really obvious.
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
>
The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and ma=
y contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be di=
sclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ether=
tronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individua=
l or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipie=
nt, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the conte=
nts of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmissi=
on in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arran=
ge for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternati=
vely, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the mes=
sage without disclosing it. Thank you
On 05/27/2017 12:25 PM, Norik Dzhandzhapanyan wrote:
> We see this inconsistent/incorrect reporting in our RF chamber.
How different are the values, and did you sniff with a third-party device
to see if it sees the same spikes in RSSI?
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Norik
>
> On 05/27/2017 09:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
>>> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>>>
>>> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k
>>> are
>>> wrong?
>> Hiya,
>>
>> So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates == weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
>> all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
>> that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
>> its really obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>> -adrian
>>
>>
>
>
> The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information which may not be disclosed, copied or distributed without the express written consent of Ethertronics Inc. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternatively, notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Norik Dzhandzhapanyan <[email protected]> writes:
> Add support for per chain RSSI reporting w/smoothing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Norik Dzhandzhapanyan [email protected]
>
>
> --- htt_rx.c.orig 2017-05-26 15:26:37.918504255 -0700
> +++ htt_rx.c 2017-05-26 12:10:33.139809025 -0700
> @@ -825,14 +825,71 @@ static bool ath10k_htt_rx_h_channel(stru
> return true;
> }
The patch formatting is broken and I can't apply this. Please use git
send-email, more info here:
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/submittingpatches
But more importantly:
> The contents of this transmission are Ethertronics Inc. Confidential
> and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information which
> may not be disclosed, copied or distributed without the express
> written consent of Ethertronics Inc. The information is intended to be
> for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If
> you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the
> retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. Alternatively,
> notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the
> message without disclosing it. Thank you
I will never apply a patch which has this kind of disclaimer. The
patches must follow the Developer's Certificate of Origin[1] and not
have any other disclaimer.
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#=
sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
--=20
Kalle Valo=
On 27 May 2017 at 09:07, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
> At low encoding rates, especially if it switches to a single-chain encoding,
> maybe the on-air signal really is stronger?
>
> Have you verified in some other manner than the signals reported by ath10k
> are
> wrong?
Hiya,
So yeah, multipath, higher TX rates == weaker TX signal, TPC, etc are
all interesting to know about at the receiver. it's hard to separate
that out from the noise sometimes, but in some controlled deployments
its really obvious.
-adrian