On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:02:20PM +0800, yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> +static void rtw_rx_rssi_add(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> + struct rtw_rx_pkt_stat *pkt_stat,
> + struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr)
> +{
> + struct ieee80211_vif *vif;
> + struct rtw_vif *rtwvif;
> + struct rtw_sta_info *si;
> + __le16 fc = hdr->frame_control;
> + u8 *bssid;
> + u8 macid = RTW_BC_MC_MACID;
> + bool match_bssid = false;
> + bool is_packet_match_bssid;
> + bool if_addr_match;
> + bool hw_err;
> + bool ctl;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + bssid = get_hdr_bssid(hdr);
> + rtwvif = get_hdr_vif(rtwdev, hdr);
> + vif = rtwvif ? rtwvif->vif : NULL;
> + pkt_stat->vif = vif;
> + if (unlikely(is_broadcast_ether_addr(hdr->addr1) ||
> + is_multicast_ether_addr(hdr->addr1)))
> + match_bssid = get_hdr_match_bssid(rtwdev, hdr, bssid);
> + else if (vif)
> + match_bssid = ether_addr_equal(vif->bss_conf.bssid, bssid);
> + si = get_hdr_sta(rtwdev, vif, hdr);
> + macid = si ? si->mac_id : RTW_BC_MC_MACID;
> + pkt_stat->mac_id = macid;
> + pkt_stat->si = si;
> +
> + if_addr_match = !!vif;
> + hw_err = pkt_stat->crc_err || pkt_stat->icv_err;
> + ctl = ieee80211_is_ctl(fc);
> + is_packet_match_bssid = !hw_err && !ctl && match_bssid;
> +
> + if (((match_bssid && if_addr_match) || ieee80211_is_beacon(fc)) &&
> + (!hw_err && !ctl) && (pkt_stat->phy_status && pkt_stat->si))
> + ewma_rssi_add(&pkt_stat->si->avg_rssi, pkt_stat->rssi);
> +
> + rcu_read_unlock();
What for rcu_read_lock/unlock is here ? Maybe is needed,
but perhaps not to protect entire function ?
> +static u8 get_tx_ampdu_factor(struct ieee80211_sta *sta)
> +{
> + u8 exp = sta->ht_cap.ampdu_factor;
> +
> + /* the least ampdu factor is 8K, and the value in the tx desc is the
> + * max aggregation num, which represents val * 2 packets can be
> + * aggregated in an AMPDU, so here we should use 8/2=4 as the base
> + */
> + return (BIT(2) << exp) - 1;
Using 4 whould be much more readable.
> +static void rtw_tx_data_pkt_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> + struct rtw_tx_pkt_info *pkt_info,
> + struct ieee80211_tx_control *control,
> + struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
<snip>
> + if (sta->vht_cap.vht_supported)
> + rate = get_highest_vht_tx_rate(rtwdev, sta);
> + else if (sta->ht_cap.ht_supported)
> + rate = get_highest_ht_tx_rate(rtwdev, sta);
> + else if (sta->supp_rates[0] <= 0xf)
> + rate = DESC_RATE11M;
> + else
> + rate = DESC_RATE54M;
No rate control, just use highest possible rate for each standard ?
> +
> + pkt_info->bmc = bmc;
> + pkt_info->sec_type = sec_type;
> + pkt_info->tx_pkt_size = skb->len;
> + pkt_info->offset = chip->tx_pkt_desc_sz;
> + pkt_info->qsel = skb->priority;
Shouldn't be qsel somehow mapped from skb->priority ?
Thanks
Stanislaw
