MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5571F70D.4020101@candelatech.com>
References: <1430829048-22549-1-git-send-email-vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com>
	<5571D903.7060203@candelatech.com>
	<CAFuUQkjP18E6fjvgZMayJYiEQtpjVUAKb+_zDmS3yBfi-QF8Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5571F70D.4020101@candelatech.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:58:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFuUQki+BF-WDHLbjsPCmF2jieYPHR8t-q4vG34ZEfkSE7QFiA@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20150605_225857_417412_0FFF3A27)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
From: YanBo <dreamfly281@gmail.com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>>> reports survey info.  I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>>
>>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>>> and busy time.
>>>
>>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>>
>>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>>
>>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
>> survey count at currently code,
>> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
>
> I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
> and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
>
> It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
> was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
> nothing.  I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
> but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
> stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
> will be good enough.
>
> I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
> firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
> channel changes.
>

The new FW (from 10.2.4.70 IIRC)  add an new WMI interface to supply such
kinds of count.

BR /Yanbo