On 03/08/2013 08:44 AM, Wojciech Dubowik wrote:
On 03/07/2013 04:46 PM, Wojciech Dubowik wrote:
On 03/07/2013 03:59 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2013-03-07 3:31 PM, Wojciech Dubowik wrote:
There is a regression introduced by this patch when power save is
off on
the station for idle checks.
I have AR9590 station with rx and tx chain set to 0x1 connected
to legacy AP (based on Ar9390) with RF cable and 40dB attenuator.
Before this patch in connection polling the station was properly
sending
null function to check whether AP is still there. After this patch
it sends
broadcast probe request which is anyway wrong or some 16 or so packets
of random data (rarely). It manifests itself in lost connection
because
there
is no ack from AP which is expected for null function.
I have been following skb's up to the descriptor setting in ath9k
and it was
all ok i.e. proper null function with valid addresses.
I have been bisecting it twice because it doesn't make much sense
but maybe
it's a HW issue?
You're right, it does not make much sense. I can't figure out how this
patch could possibly change the runtime behavior with tx chainmask set
to 0x1. Have you tried reverting this patch in a current build to
see if
that fixes the issue?
It does fix it. I will check tomorrow whether it's only AR9590 or also
previous revisions. I will also try with different chainmasks. I will
have
to rescrew my setup...
I have been doing some tests and it seems to affect both AR9390 and
AR9590.
To summarize: sta doesn't send null function but broadcast probe
request or
corrupted frames in idle checking routine when power save is off and
only some
antennas are selected for transmission.
So for example when I set antenna mask 7 i.e. all available it works
ok but with
mask 1, 3 or 6 not. When I swith power save it's all ok no matter what
mask I use.
Thing with power save on is that before it goes to idle check it will
go to sleep since
there is no traffic anyway, then we get beacon miss, it wakes up and
it sends null
function. I guess waking up is reinitializing sth in a chip which
doesn't occur in my
scenario.
HW issue?
It will also work if I set user specified antenna masks instead of hw
capabilities.
Shouldn't it be the case anyway?
Wojtek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
