Return-path: Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:41591 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965803Ab0COXzs convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:55:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pv0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 4so230739pva.19 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:55:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <43e72e891003151655i7dc051d0lc1da26267e9c706@mail.gmail.com> References: <1268459216-22372-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20100315214338.GB4000@tux> <43e72e891003151625t795b8ecdr2ce2e6927e8632a4@mail.gmail.com> <20100315234909.GA2662@tux> <4B9EC85B.8070800@openwrt.org> <43e72e891003151655i7dc051d0lc1da26267e9c706@mail.gmail.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:55:28 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e891003151655q355a6819ie320406ed00e555@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] ath9k_hw: complete support for AR9271 To: Felix Fietkau Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , Vivek Natarajan , Sujith Manoharan , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2010-03-16 12:49 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c >>> index 00570fb..867cfaf 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c >>> @@ -807,6 +804,10 @@ void ath9k_hw_init_global_settings(struct ath_hw *ah) >>>               acktimeout += 64 - sifstime - ah->slottime; >>> >>>       ath9k_hw_setslottime(ah, slottime); >>> + >>> +     if (AR_SREV_9271(ah)) >>> +             return; >>> + >>>       ath9k_hw_set_ack_timeout(ah, acktimeout); >>>       ath9k_hw_set_cts_timeout(ah, acktimeout); >>>       if (ah->globaltxtimeout != (u32) -1) >> >> Why leave out the ACK/CTS timeout setting? How does the hw handle ACK >> and CTS timeouts? > > Right, so that's why I originally removed this hunk completely, I was > under the impression you latest fix would have addressed any issues > but it does not, we get association time outs. I think we'll have to > review this further in order to support coverage class. I should note the issue is only for ar9271. Luis