Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1592b9b4354d67c104d2782915e1a66d0a972b92.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: every other wireless scan shows bogus (too low) signal strengths
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Bruno Dantas <dantas@airpost.net>,
        Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:22:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <90bb34e9-4e83-dcc2-91f2-e6f28ddbcc73@airpost.net>
References: <b48efa92-9eee-d491-1149-a7cee08300c0@airpost.net>
         <80556c56e69405d7c8f8bc3d57e2ba697074c660.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <9093c08e-302d-578c-3e16-619d238b4022@airpost.net>
         <CAGRGNgVGsii7+jdN3PnMWdCSeRyCDF96ivVOfxzi8xDufUigNw@mail.gmail.com>
         <90bb34e9-4e83-dcc2-91f2-e6f28ddbcc73@airpost.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 10:21 -0500, Bruno Dantas wrote:
>=20
> Maybe doing a wifi network scan requires more power than just
> authenticating with an AP and using the network? And maybe my after-
> market 802.11ac adapter requires a bit more power than the 802.11n
> adapters that were around when this laptop was made? If so, maybe it
> takes this old laptop's PCI bus two attempts before the 802.11ac
> adapter has enough power to do an accurate network scan? That's a lot
> of maybes, but it's my best guess given the behavior I'm observing.
>=20

FWIW - and sorry I didn't get around to answering here earlier - that
doesn't really make a lot of sense - we're talking about the report of
"received signal strength", which is pretty much unrelated to the power
you need to actually receive.

But as to what's actually going on I still have no clue either, sorry.

johannes