Hi, Please supply the register values that you're programming in here. Thanks, adrian On 15 April 2013 00:53, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Mr.Adrian, > I continued my testing with: > 1. 2-wire coexistence mode with WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE lines > 2. Different values to the weight registers. For most of the cases I give a > 0x0000 weightage to WLAN and 0xFFFF weightage to BT, to ensure that BT > always gets the priority for any type of WLAN traffic. > 3. WiFi in Access Point mode. I have connected one WiFi source (WiFi camera > as client ) and WiFi destination (Laptop as client). > > I definetely see a lot of difference (based on status of WLAN_ACTIVE) with > and without Co-existence active. Following are the observations: > 1. Without the BT_ACTIVE signal, the WLAN traffic seems to be evenly > distributed. > 2. Next I duty cycle BT_ACTIVE with 100ms period, 70ms for BT and 30ms for > WiFi. The observation is that when BT_ACTIVE is true, the WiFi activity is > REDUCED but not completely eliminated. My understanding is that when > BT_ACTIVE is True WLAN should show logic '0'. > > The following are some queries: > a. WiFi chipset is in WiFI AP mode and WLAN_ACTIVE is True when either > WLAN_TX or WLAN_RX is True. So are the pulses I see during BT_ACTIVE true > are because of WLAN_RX? The following is the configuration for WLAN_ACTIVE > gpio > > /* Configure the desired GPIO port for TX_FRAME output */ > ath9k_hw_cfg_output(ah, btcoex_hw->wlanactive_gpio, > AR_GPIO_OUTPUT_MUX_AS_TX_FRAME); > b. Is there a way to configure the MUX and GPIO in a manner to do some thing > like this? > When WLAN_TX is active than GPIO6 is activated > When WLAN_RX is active than GPIO7 is activated. > c. Or is it that I need to use 3-wire coexistence for this kind of wifi > configuration (WiFI AP mode)? > d. Please let me know if there is any basic mis-understanding I have? > > Thanks & regards > Sandeep. > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ath9k-devel > <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 12:52 PM > > Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior > > No, wifi stomping occurs with both 2-wire and 3-wire. > > BT_PRIORITY just gives the MAC the ability to tell the difference > between high priority TX and any bt activity requiring the air, so the > MAC can then choose a weight based on differnet kinds of BT inputs. > > If all you have is two wire, then you don't get separate weight table > entries for different kinds of BT transmissions. > > > > adrian > > On 9 April 2013 23:13, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello Mr.Adrian, >> Thanks for your response. I understand the following: Please correct if >> I am wrong. >> 1. With WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE, the wireless medium is managed between >> BT >> and WLAN without stomping the traffic. >> 2. With WLAN_ACTIVE, BT_ACTIVE and BT_PRIORITY, WiFI traffic stomping is >> possible. >> >> Regards >> Sandeep. >> >> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ath9k-devel >> <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" >> <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 11:07 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior >> >> Right, but same deal - if it asserts the line, it should stomp wifi >> transmission in your particular scheme. >> >> >> >> adrian >> >> >> On 9 April 2013 19:37, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hello Mr.Adrian, >>> Thanks for your response. During googling, I had come across the >>> following 2-wire coexistence solution from owl modules. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://support.connectblue.com/display/PRODWLAN/cB-OWL22x+Bluetooth+co-existence+application+note >>> According to this application note, for 2-wire coexistence, WLAN_ACTIVE >>> and >>> BT_PRIORITY signals are used rather than WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE. What >>> is >>> your opinion on this? And as I understand owl modules are based on >>> Atheros >>> chipsets. >>> >>> Regards >>> Sandeep. >>> >>> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ath9k-devel >>> <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" >>> <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 4:30 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yes, "WLAN_ACTIVE" here is just both TX and RX activity. >>> >>> So if it were working, that would stay low. >>> >>> >>> >>> adrian >>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
