Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:63271 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760405Ab2EQDgC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2012 23:36:02 -0400 Received: by pbbrp8 with SMTP id rp8so1958175pbb.19 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:36:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 23:36:01 -0400 Message-ID: (sfid-20120517_053637_721038_792EFEFA) Subject: Re: AR9280 reported signal strengths are flat (comparison with bcm4322 included) From: George Nychis To: Holger Schurig Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Well, I believe that I forced ANI to be disabled and I still see this same behavior. To disable ANI on my AR9280, I added this to __ath9k_hw_init() in hw.c if (AR_SREV_9280(ah)) ah->config.enable_ani = false; I believe this works because in ath9k_hw_post_init() I have checked that ah->config.enable_ani is set to false. Therefore, ath9k_hw_ani_setup() and ath9k_hw_ani_init() are never called. Unfortunately, I still see this same flat line trend without strong signal strengths near the device. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM, George Nychis wrote: > > BTW- is ANI _not_ applied on broadcast traffic? ?I notice that > monitoring the signal strength of beacons does not show this behavior. > ?Maybe not applied for localization reasons? > > - George > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, George Nychis wrote: > > Hi Holger, > > > > Thanks a bunch for your response! ?I had read about ANI before on the > > list, it would be interesting to know if this is the cause for this. > > It definitely seems plausible. I will dig around the ath9k code and > > see if I can narrow down this to the cause. > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM, George Nychis wrote: > >> > >> Hi Holger, > >> > >> Thanks a bunch for your response! ?I had read about ANI before on the > >> list, it would be interesting to know if this is the cause for this. ?It > >> definitely seems plausible. I will dig around the ath9k code and see if I > >> can narrow down this to the cause. > >> > >> - George > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Holger Schurig > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> This is probably due to ANI (adapative noise immunity). I think ath9k > >>> does too much here, in other words: it doesn't just kick in if there > >>> are too strong signals there. Instead it seems to always adjust the > >>> input attenuator, needed or not. > >> > >>