On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 07:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > > - max_qual.level == 0 (ie, dBm values) > > > > That is an area where NM (= 0) and mac80211 (= -110) do not agree. > > Then mac80211 is not conforming to WEXT... unless it's setting > IW_QUAL_DBM in the updated field, which it probably is. Yeah, it is. > Before we added IW_QUAL_DBM, the switch between dBm and RSSI was > max_qual.level; if it was 0, level was in dBm, because no cards in use > in Linux at that time could support a signal of more 0 dBm. Thus, if it > was over 0, the value was in RSSI. > > Here's the relevant bit of wireless.h: > > /* Quality range (link, level, noise) > * If the quality is absolute, it will be in the range [0 ; max_qual], > * if the quality is dBm, it will be in the range [max_qual ; 0]. > > That doc never got updated for IW_QUAL_DBM either. Fun. But what did I expect. I withdraw my earlier patch then. > NM doesn't really handle IW_QUAL_DBM (added in WE-19). Mainly because > stuff worked without it, and it wasn't implemented in drivers until > quite recently. NM should handle IW_QUAL_DBM. Does all that mean that we cannot actually get this working right now without adding back qual.qual? Or should we just remove IW_QUAL_DBM? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
