On 09/24/2014 08:05 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 16:35, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/24/2014 12:51 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 24 September 2014 02:26, <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
+static struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap ath10k_create_vht_cap(struct ath10k
*ar,
+ bool
use_cfg_chains)
{
struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap = {0};
u16 mcs_map;
int i;
+ int nrf = ar->num_rf_chains;
+
+ if (use_cfg_chains && ar->cfg_tx_chainmask)
+ nrf = get_nss_from_chainmask(ar->cfg_tx_chainmask);
Is use_cfg_chains really necessary here? Is setting tx/rx chainmask to
0x0 make any sense at all? Shouldn't we deny it or make it fallback to
the supported tx/rx chainmask values?
It would cause the logic to flip back to the defaults, so seems mildly
useful. I'm not sure
upper layers would ever let it be < 1 though.
0 is a valid argument as far as upper layers are concerned and should
be treated as "use all available antennas" (see `iw list` output
before ever setting antenna, after setting to, e.g. 1 and then to 0).
This implies current set_antenna() implementation is actually buggy
(pdev param should involve using supp_tx/rx_chainmask). Your
assumption in recent patches is also incorrect as antenna mask = 0
should imply max nss, not 1.
I will test, but I think you are mis-understanding the logic in my
patches. I should be using the max nss whenever configured value
is 0.
Thanks,
Ben
Michał
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
