Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com ([209.85.220.158]:34494 "EHLO mail-fx0-f158.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750965AbZEEEt3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 00:49:29 -0400 Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so4293571fxm.37 for ; Mon, 04 May 2009 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: [ipw3945-devel] IWL3945 always reports noise levels of -127 From: Maxim Levitsky To: "Cahill, Ben M" Cc: iwlwifi maling list , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <02B3067C068D0549A8CCFCB17D4D318B3569A442@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1241213459.7082.54.camel@maxim-laptop> <02B3067C068D0549A8CCFCB17D4D318B3569A43A@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> <1241463816.4816.1.camel@maxim-laptop> <02B3067C068D0549A8CCFCB17D4D318B3569A442@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 07:49:21 +0300 Message-Id: <1241498961.4816.4.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 12:27 -0700, Cahill, Ben M wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Maxim Levitsky [mailto:maximlevitsky@gmail.com] > >Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:04 PM > >To: Cahill, Ben M > >Cc: iwlwifi maling list; linux-wireless > >Subject: RE: [ipw3945-devel] IWL3945 always reports noise > >levels of -127 > > > >On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 11:53 -0700, Cahill, Ben M wrote: > >> When one of our devices cannot figure out what the actual > >noise level is, it reports -127. > >> > >> Newer devices are better at old devices at figuring noise > >level. IIRC, 3945 cannot figure noise for CCK signals, and > >may not be possible with OFDM as well. > > > >Why then it did work on older kernel ? > >(and noise levels seemed to be correct) > > Hmmm, good point, and I don't know the answer! :-( > > Guess it deserves a bugzilla. > > Would you be willing to look in the source to see if you can figure out why? Looks like a search for "noise" in iwl-3945.c will lead in the right direction. > > -- Ben -- Indeed I'll do. One thing I need to check is whether this is related to firmware, as there was a switch to newer one. Anyway I'll see what I can do there. I already did look at source, and I didn't yet find anything suspicios, I guess few printk won't hurt there. Thanks, Maxim Levitsky