Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> And how did you test this? Are both PCI and USB devices affected? >> >> I tested this on a 8devices Rambutan with QCA9558 SoC, but didn‘t >> explicitly test this with a USB device. I am not sure whether the >> ath9k_htc is affected. First I tested this without the patch to get a >> reference for comparison. I connected three devices via WiFi 2.4GHz >> and 5GHz, generated traffic multiple times with iperf3 and captured >> the rc_stats for each station. Then I applied the patch and did the >> same again. The throughput was overall the same like without the >> patch, compared to the first run of each station. Rate selection >> worked fine, the stats were nearly identical, same rates selected in >> both runs. > > Thanks. Can someone review this from ath9k_htc point of view? Pretty sure ath9k_htc devices do rate control in the firmware. Certainly ath9k_htc sets the HAS_RATE_CONTROL flag in mac80211, and the only calls to ath_set_rates are from within xmit.c, which is not used by ath9k_htc. So I think we're fine as far as that is concerned... -Toke
