Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Firmware ignores SMPS flags in peer assoc command.
>
> For SMPS to work it is necessary to set peer
> parameter after peer assoc command so that tx
> chainmask is setup properly.
>
> This should fix packet loss and improve throughput
> with stations that have SMPS enabled upon
> association.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> +static const u32 ath10k_smps_map[] = {
> + [WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_STATIC] = WMI_PEER_SMPS_STATIC,
> + [WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DYNAMIC] = WMI_PEER_SMPS_DYNAMIC,
> + [WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_INVALID] = WMI_PEER_SMPS_PS_NONE,
> + [WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DISABLED] = WMI_PEER_SMPS_PS_NONE,
> +};
> +
> +static int ath10k_setup_peer_smps(struct ath10k *ar, struct ath10k_vif *arvif,
> + const u8 *addr,
> + const struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap *ht_cap)
> +{
> + int smps;
> +
> + if (!ht_cap->ht_supported)
> + return 0;
> +
> + smps = ht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS;
> + smps >>= IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS_SHIFT;
> +
> + if (smps >= ARRAY_SIZE(ath10k_smps_map))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return ath10k_wmi_peer_set_param(ar, arvif->vdev_id, addr,
> + WMI_PEER_SMPS_STATE,
> + ath10k_smps_map[smps]);
> +}
ath10k_smps_map looks overkill (and fragile), wouldn't a switch
statement be simpler?
> @@ -1370,6 +1385,7 @@ static void ath10k_bss_assoc(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> {
> struct ath10k *ar = hw->priv;
> struct ath10k_vif *arvif = ath10k_vif_to_arvif(vif);
> + struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap ht_cap;
> struct wmi_peer_assoc_complete_arg peer_arg;
> struct ieee80211_sta *ap_sta;
> int ret;
> @@ -1386,6 +1402,8 @@ static void ath10k_bss_assoc(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> return;
> }
>
> + ht_cap = ap_sta->ht_cap;
Why do you copy ht_cap? I can't figure out the reason.
--
Kalle Valo
--
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
