Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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... Very good, thanks for checking. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
