Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([46.4.11.11]:41065 "EHLO nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689Ab3DMWII (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:08:08 -0400 Message-ID: <5169D740.7070206@openwrt.org> (sfid-20130414_000812_384652_94A5720A) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:08:00 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd CC: Johannes Berg , Jonas Gorski , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , Nishant Sarmukadam , Yogesh Ashok Powar , Lennert Buytenhek Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] mwl8k: don't expose non-standard rates References: <1365849071-2389-1-git-send-email-jogo@openwrt.org> <1365869899.1089.0.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013-04-13 8:59 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 13 April 2013 09:18, Johannes Berg wrote: > >>> Are these "turbo" mode rates? ie, 40MHz wide channels with pre-11n >>> rates on them? >> >> 22 actually *is* a standard rate, it's just that almost nobody >> implements it. > > Well, is it the 20mhz rate or a 40mhz turbo rate? > >> The original problem seems a bit strange though, seems those should just >> not be marked basic? > > Again, if its a custom rate for 11a/11g 40MHz static turbo style > configurations, it should only be exposed when the AP is running in > that particular mode. > > And yes, if the hardware does support it, then it should really only > not be configured for basic rates. That way mwl8k<->mwl8k hardware can > take advantage of it when those stations are talking to each other. > > (Yeah, I come from a world where FreeBSD users still want to run > Turbo/Static-40MHz operation with things like fast frames and turbo > rates.. damned legacy hardware. :-) I really don't think this is a 40 MHz thing, the driver does not seem to have any concept of a non-standard legacy 40 MHz mode. I think they simply added different modulation for the 72 MBit/s rate. Keeping this rate doesn't even make sense for mwl8k<->mwl8k, as it's a non-standard legacy rate, whereas the device can do much better with plain 802.11n :) - Felix