On 10/28/21 5:30 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 23:31, Benjamin Li wrote:
>> - status.rate_idx >= sband->n_bitrates) {
> This fix was applied because we were getting a negative index
>
> If you want to remove that, you'll need to do something about this
>
> status.rate_idx -= 4;
Hmm... so you're saying there's a FW bug where sometimes we get
bd->rate_id = 0-7 (leading to status.rate_idx = 0-3) on a 5GHz
channel?
static const struct wcn36xx_rate wcn36xx_rate_table[] = {
/* 11b rates */
{ 10, 0, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 20, 1, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 55, 2, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 110, 3, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
/* 11b SP (short preamble) */
{ 10, 0, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 20, 1, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 55, 2, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
{ 110, 3, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 },
It sounds like we should WARN and drop the frame in that case. If
you agree I'll send a v2.
>
> ---
> bod
