Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:62684 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755047Ab1JCMng (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:43:36 -0400 Received: by ywb5 with SMTP id 5so3354250ywb.19 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:43:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4E89A941.8060208@neratec.com> References: <1317637758-11907-1-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> <1317637758-11907-4-git-send-email-zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> <4E89A941.8060208@neratec.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:43:36 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20111003_144339_972524_506482A5) Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] ath9k: initial radar pulse detection for DFS From: Adrian Chadd To: Zefir Kurtisi Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, kgiori@qca.qualcomm.com, rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com, nbd@openwrt.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3 October 2011 20:23, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: > There might be one, but I left it out (for now) for the sake of simplicity. > > I anyhow doubt it has a practical relevance, since the pulse width is reported with usec granularity and therefore a scaling factor of 1/811 vs. 1/800 has no impact on the re-scaled value for widths up to 50 usecs. I just remember this was a sticking point when porting the fusion code to FreeBSD. Without that particular fix, some of the radar patterns didn't actually match reliably. It's possible it doesn't matter as much for your classification code. I'm just bringing it up to be complete. :) Adrian