Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:64261 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754501AbYLEX04 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:26:56 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 39so143544ugf.37 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:26:54 -0800 (PST) From: Henning Rogge To: "linux-wireless" Subject: Re: RFC Patch v2: Add signal strength to nl80211station info Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:26:44 +0100 References: <200811252131.30161.hrogge@googlemail.com> <200812051051.52908.rogge@fgan.de> <1228470840.3970.15.camel@johannes.berg> In-Reply-To: <1228470840.3970.15.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart10327622.Hoc5TZN0vo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: <200812060026.50636.hrogge@googlemail.com> (sfid-20081206_002659_429846_D1715CE3) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --nextPart10327622.Hoc5TZN0vo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I just did a few calculations about the tx/rx rates in 802.11n and I think = I=20 can replace all of them with simple integer arithmetics. Only the 20Mhz rat= es=20 with short guard interval are a little bit off (I think I miss two of them = by=20 0.1 MBit/s and one of them by 0.2 MBit/s)... do you think that's accurate enough ? Henning --nextPart10327622.Hoc5TZN0vo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkk5uLoACgkQcenvcwAcHWd3WQCfQPcTkj0+NFcpvoRXH3nixrKJ FKgAnR3FUs9Oy0K5xMWwX4mD6OQud1cY =Hhcg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart10327622.Hoc5TZN0vo--