Dan Williams wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 09:09 -0600, Larry Finger wrote: >> I admit that I didn't follow the discussion of reporting signal quality very >> closely; however since commit 708c57cf1709fb95, all of my wireless devices (b43, >> p54usb, rtl8187) are reporting link quality as XX/70 rather than XX/100. I doubt >> that this was an intended consequence of that patch. If the SIOCGIWRANGE ioctl >> is now more correct, what changes are needed in the drivers to restore the old >> behavior? Having written the qual calculation for 2 drivers, I understand the >> uselessness of this number, but I also know the uproar such a change will cause >> in the user community. > > Intended. It doesn't matter what the /X number is; it's simply the > upper bound of what the # before the / will be. Quality is in the range > of [0 ... max_qual.qual]. You should be able to divide quality / > max_qual.qual and get a reasonable number to use for pretty UI display. > > Many drivers used to use something other than 100 for max quality, and > many still do: > > airo.c: range->max_qual.qual = airo_get_max_quality(&cap_rid); > hostap/hostap_ioctl.c: range->max_qual.qual = 70; /* what is correct max? This was not > hostap/hostap_ioctl.c: range->max_qual.qual = 92; /* 0 .. 92 */ > netwave_cs.c: range->max_qual.qual = 255; > orinoco/wext.c: range->max_qual.qual = 0x8b - 0x2f; > wavelan.c: range->max_qual.qual = MMR_SGNL_QUAL; > wavelan_cs.c: range->max_qual.qual = MMR_SGNL_QUAL; > zd1201.c: range->max_qual.qual = 128; I know how it works with drivers that implement their own ioctl calls for the WEXT interface; however, the 3 that I mentioned all use mac80211 and get their WEXT support through cfg80211. Larry -- 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
