Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([46.4.11.11]:33307 "EHLO nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751908Ab2DPJox (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:44:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8BEA0D.9020104@openwrt.org> (sfid-20120416_114457_196505_74E13058) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:44:45 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Halperin CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ath9k_hw: do not override SIFS time for half/quarter channels References: <1334484941-27673-1-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <1334484941-27673-2-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <4F8B1312.2010108@openwrt.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2012-04-16 8:30 AM, Daniel Halperin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2012-04-15 8:22 PM, Daniel Halperin wrote: >>> Felix, >>> >>> This whole patch series throws the NICs out of spec compliance. For >>> instance, page 626 of the 802.11-2007 standard (Table 17-15) says that >>> aSIFStime is 32 us in 10 MHz mode and 64 us in 5 MHz mode. >>> >>> This might be okay to do for certain implementations (as, apparently, >>> AR9280/AR9380), but will break compatibility with any device obeying >>> the standard instead. >>> >>> (I wonder that, if this code below still works, then it seems that you >>> might not be properly downclocking the chips' reference clock...) >>> >>> Are you aware there's a standard for this? Why violate it? >> I'm aware that there's a standard for it, but if I put in the standard >> values, the connection gets unreliable to the point where it's almost >> unusable. That's why I chose to use existing products with 5/10 MHz >> support as reference instead. >> > > I hear you, but still suspect the bug's somewhere else. Violating the > standard likely isn't the right choice unless you have a good > reason... it sounds like you don't know why this is happening but this > hack 'seems to work'. > > (UBNT is also ath-based, right? So it's not really proof that this > hack doesn't break compatibility..) Right, UBNT is also ath-based, and I dumped the registers on the device to figure out what parameters they were using, and used those as reference for my ath9k work. I'm not aware of *any* standard compliant 5/10 MHz product out there, do you know any? - Felix