Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:44938 "EHLO mail-qt0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752501AbdKFJCG (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:02:06 -0500 Received: by mail-qt0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 8so10023155qtv.1 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:02:06 -0800 (PST) From: Sven Eckelmann To: Sebastian Gottschall Cc: Kalle Valo , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, akolli@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ath10k: Fix reported HT MCS rates with NSS > 1 Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:02:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1960925.hkIbv4gX65@bentobox> (sfid-20171106_100229_459013_781AE9BB) In-Reply-To: References: <20170511090930.18205-1-sven.eckelmann@openmesh.com> <1728147.6Xy77nSgBU@bentobox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2548788.amK8YvZs1P"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --nextPart2548788.amK8YvZs1P Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Montag, 6. November 2017 09:28:42 CET Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > Am 06.11.2017 um 09:23 schrieb Sven Eckelmann: > > On Sonntag, 5. November 2017 10:22:22 CET Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > >> the assumption made in this patch is obviously wrong (at least for more > >> recent firmwares and 9984) > >> my log is flooded with messages like > >> [208802.803537] ath10k_pci 0001:03:00.0: Invalid VHT mcs 15 peer stats > >> [208805.108515] ath10k_pci 0001:03:00.0: Invalid VHT mcs 15 peer stats > >> [208821.747621] ath10k_pci 0001:03:00.0: Invalid VHT mcs 15 peer stats > >> [208822.516599] ath10k_pci 0001:03:00.0: Invalid VHT mcs 15 peer stats > >> [208841.257780] ath10k_pci 0001:03:00.0: Invalid VHT mcs 15 peer stats [...] > > This patch only splits WMI_RATE_PREAMBLE_HT & WMI_RATE_PREAMBLE_VHT. And for > > WMI_RATE_PREAMBLE_HT (*not VHT*), it uses a slightly different approach. But > > the WMI_RATE_PREAMBLE_VHT part (which you see in your logs) is basically > > untouched. > > then a question follows up. is this check really neccessary? Until we find out what the heck VHT MCS 15 should mean in this context - maybe. But to the message - no, the message is most likely not necessary for each received "invalid" peer tx stat. Kind regards. Sven --nextPart2548788.amK8YvZs1P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF10rh2Elc9zjMuACXYcKB8Eme0YFAloAJQgACgkQXYcKB8Em e0ZADw/+KXXFru7VdgfVkdKULuBzCdeF1XU0TSJkzCdTR04SHm+7cKWFB7qV+D7H 09Ujo8TvqafHF8o+N05LyxyVXxNrOVnCsHonwAgjTQRWt2pIa1csD6rbGLkw2NMH hAjbiD4BRnqyuPmD979+ceJQrH7Gueai16pce+IEciDKWlkjhv1akMPdcZz/DeFh Zgw8ZuzHSWK3odZdQBRxIvhu/rBMiH5HAHuxAkSpnU66gQcduqAY4aomwbwRcsMO PllgZ8ElkJK/LAqQlO4X3PHOwGNyG+gZnhFm95X755dBf8hzhcBYpnthN30WIL9c mgwVFWuhhfgOMPKAyscGfnmh7bxT8gRs7zxAWqyvdrZgjus3i158y+hr1bqrtGKn swExmP/sFtErqzoUiVmhkirXKMo84a/Qdyxs9ZIqGmM+UNEEUxLVYqnYDZ4JSUPH s0WArFBSv6Jbhv7x9acqGu1C9A3NMfkac2rS3ziuf5gYUg7rQZ5Sxlztv9+Ju2Rc X++Dp0UqvZ7rxM/uUIrPWNcwm6Zg+ds9Qi1dDOoNMi3GUb78AbvF7NoSHQzgs3fb qYuoUV73c+xvRAcviFIEIdud1hlBNgvc8mUOX5oKmGLUzrdZGYcPjez42kPqqFmf NcmUAUR5gacYZ+pHBUxyOujhf4rhfknd7xVwdxnFCh0gssOtWGg= =j5Ri -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2548788.amK8YvZs1P--