Linus Lüssing <ll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 19/07/2022 17:03, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> Hi! >> >> It's not a hardware bug. Dating back to the original AR5416 11n chip, >> most flags aren't valid for subframes in an aggregate. Only the final >> frame has valid flags. This was explicitly covered internally way back >> when. > > Ah, thanks for the clarification! I see it in the datasheet for the > QCA9531, too, now. And thanks for the confirmation, that what we are > doing so far is not correct for ath9k. > > Words 0+2 are valid for all RX descriptors, 0+2+11 valid for the last RX > descriptor of each packet and 0-11 for the last RX descriptor of an > aggregate or last RX descriptor of a stand-alone packet. Or in other > words, word 4, which contains the 20 vs. 40 MHz indicator, is invalid > for any aggregate sub-frame other than the last one. I can rename that > in the commit message. > > > Another approach that also came to my mind was introducing more explicit > flags in cfg80211.h's "struct rate_info", like a RATE_INFO_BW_UNKNOWN in > "enum rate_info_bw" and/or RATE_INFO_FLAGS_UNKNOWN in "enum > rate_info_flags". And setting those flags in ath9k_cmn_process_rate(). > > The current approach is smaller though, as it simply uses the already > existing flags. If anyone has any preferences, please let me know. I have no objections to doing it in mac80211 like you're proposing here :) -Toke
