On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:05:01AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:22 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:29:33AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
> >> > From: Guy Cohen <guy.cohen@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > This patch fixes cases that the code raised or didn't decrease
> >> > the rate although the success ratio was not good.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Guy Cohen <guy.cohen@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c | 45 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >> > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
> >> > index 2adc228..fa41ed1 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
> >> > @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static int rs_move_legacy_other(struct iwl_priv *priv,
> >> > lq_sta->search_better_tbl = 1;
> >> > goto out;
> >> > }
> >> > -
> >> > + break;
> >> > case IWL_LEGACY_SWITCH_SISO:
> >> > IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: Legacy switch to SISO\n");
> >> >
> >> > @@ -1425,9 +1425,9 @@ static int rs_move_siso_to_other(struct iwl_priv *priv,
> >> > lq_sta->search_better_tbl = 1;
> >> > goto out;
> >> > }
> >> > -
> >> > + break;
> >> > case IWL_SISO_SWITCH_MIMO2:
> >> > - IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: SISO switch to MIMO\n");
> >> > + IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: SISO switch to MIMO2\n");
> >> > memcpy(search_tbl, tbl, sz);
> >> > search_tbl->is_SGI = 0;
> >> > search_tbl->ant_type = ANT_AB; /*FIXME:RS*/
> >>
> >> These hunks don't apply to wireless-2.6.
> >
> > Oops, please ignore these hunks.
> >
>
> I think you've missed this one 'iwlwifi: don't switch to SGI if not
> supported by AP'
> This is actually real connectivity bug fix. Without this client will
> fail to talk to AP that doesn't support SGI and there are many of
> those.
That patch was not identified for 2.6.26, and it looks like it won't
apply to 2.6.26 either.
Back to the original patch, I can ignore the hunks in question and
send it to 2.6.26, but then we'll need a new patch to apply those
hunks for 2.6.27. Or, I can just delay this one for 2.6.27...?
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
