Message-ID: <5184EE0B.1030605@openwrt.org> (sfid-20130504_131638_597194_554815B7)
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 13:16:27 +0200
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
CC: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k_htc: add STBC TX support
References: <1367482308-9882-1-git-send-email-linux@rempel-privat.de> <1367482308-9882-2-git-send-email-linux@rempel-privat.de> <CAJ-Vmo=rZrHmXD0Os-Mb40jSEywbO-7GHSqL=7iMbkzAfS=+UQ@mail.gmail.com> <5182A341.8050704@rempel-privat.de> <5182A9DC.6030203@openwrt.org> <CAJ-Vmo=XYK=Jkc40U_vJO03n+tiA_LDpw8e1QKYRX6-+E9o4fA@mail.gmail.com> <5184AFC2.8060101@rempel-privat.de> <5184DCCF.9010009@openwrt.org> <5184EC19.9060206@rempel-privat.de>
In-Reply-To: <5184EC19.9060206@rempel-privat.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 2013-05-04 1:08 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 04.05.2013 12:02, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
>> On 2013-05-04 8:50 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>> Am 02.05.2013 22:15, schrieb Adrian Chadd:
>>>> Well, let's dig into the firmware a bit more and tidy up how STBC is handled.
>>>
>>> Does it mean, i should change this patch and provide a patch for
>>> firmware too?
>>> I still do not think, changing peer caps i a good idea in any case.
>>> I mena this part of patch:
>>> +               if (sta->ht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_TX_STBC)
>>> +                       caps |= WLAN_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG;
>>>
>>>
>>> Behaviour with this patch will be fallowing:
>>> - peer provide caps, even if it is RX-STBC12
>>> - we pass this information to firmware and ratecontroller of FW, do
>>> right decision based on hardware it has.
>>>
>>> You suggestion, if i understand it correctly, is to filter caps:
>>> - if peer provide more than we can, we should tell firmware the value
>>> what we can. So, if peer say it can RX-STBC12, we should tell firmware
>>> that peer is RX-STBC1.
>>> In my opinion, this kind of filter is a source for hidden errors.
>> I think the discussion regarding RX-STBC12 vs RX-STBC1 is purely
>> hypothetical. The hardware that this firmware was designed for only
>> supports sending STBC for MCS0-7. This will not change.
>>
>> Also, there's no reason to tell the firmware about both rx and tx STBC
>> capabilities, the only thing it needs to know is what tells the rate
>> control part to enable/disable STBC.
> 
> As you can see, in version 2 of this path there was no more discussion 
> about it. I just did it.
> 
>> In addition to that, using the WLAN_RC_* flags is wrong, you need to use
>> the ATH_RC_* flags, as this is what ath_rate_newassoc_11n checks for in
>> the firmware.
> 
> Renamed.
> 
>> The only STBC related flag that actually gets used (when
>> passed from the driver) is ATH_RC_RX_STBC_FLAG.
> 
> Well, may be it is not used at the end. But it is present on some places 
> in the firmware.
> For example here:
> void
> rcSibUpdate_11n(struct ath_softc_tgt *sc, struct ath_node_target *pSib,
>                  A_UINT32 capflag, A_BOOL keepState, struct 
> ieee80211_rate  *pRateSet)
> {
>          rcSibUpdate_ht(sc,
>                         pSib,
>                         ((capflag & ATH_RC_DS_FLAG)   ? WLAN_RC_DS_FLAG 
>   : 0) |
>                         ((capflag & ATH_RC_HT40_SGI_FLAG)  ? 
> WLAN_RC_HT40_SGI_FLAG : 0) |
>                         ((capflag & ATH_RC_HT_FLAG)   ? WLAN_RC_HT_FLAG 
>   : 0) |
>                         ((capflag & ATH_RC_CW40_FLAG) ? WLAN_RC_40_FLAG 
>   : 0) |
>                         ((capflag & ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG)   ? 
> WLAN_RC_STBC_FLAG  : 0),
>                         keepState,
>                         pRateSet);
> 
> 
> 
> So, should i remove ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG from my patch?
I extensively reviewed this part, and it's really crazy. Here's what
happens:

ath_rate_newassoc_11n takes ATH_RC_* flags, converts them to WLAN_RC_*.
rcSibUpdate_11n interprets the WLAN_RC_* flags as ATH_RC_* and converts
them to WLAN_RC_* again. For most flags this is pretty much a no-op
because the definitions are identical.
For STBC the result 'accidentally' still contains WLAN_RC_STBC_FLAG, but
only because ath_rate_newassoc_11n converts ATH_RC_RX_STBC_FLAG to
WLAN_RC_STBC_FLAG and WLAN_RC_STBC_FLAG overlaps with ATH_RC_TX_STBC_FLAG.
In the end it doesn't matter anymore, because nothing in the code takes
the STBC info from the capflags.

STBC is used if ATH_NODE_ATHEROS(an)->stbc is non-zero, and this gets
set by ath_rate_newassoc_11n before all of those incredibly moronic
conversions happen.

- Felix