On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 01:00:27PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >, and, since >> > 63266a653589e1a237527479f10212ea77ce7844 "ath5k: rates cleanup", we do not fall back to the basic rate, such packets would trigger >> > the following WARN_ON: >> >> So its slow because using rate 0 takes a while? If indeed you don't >> see a valid use for this rate I'd say to completely disallow it and >> use BUG_ON() on it. > > Not sure I follow - these are incoming frames, which all had a status_0 > of 0x1a40 (rs_more=0x1000 & length=0xa40). So hw rate index was zero > on these for some reason, but in my testing the rate index of all other > packets was something reasonable, e.g. 0x27. Interesting -- I will have to check on what this means. > I looked over the rate tables compared to hal-legacy; I think what we > have now is correct, just the old ath5k code in hw_to_driver_rix would > set rate=1 for any hw rate index that we didn't know about: > > - /* Something went wrong, fallback to basic rate for this band */ > - if ((mac80211_rix >= sc->curband->n_bitrates) || > - (mac80211_rix <= 0 )) > - mac80211_rix = 1; > > That's gone now, and that's why we didn't have the WARN_ON previously. > > For TX-side, I think we don't use rate 0 already since Bruno's cleanup, > we should just use the hw_value fields in ath5k_rates which are all > nonzero. Oh ok thanks. Luis -- 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
