On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:54:00AM +0530, Vasanth Thiagarajan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 06:28:21AM +0530, Luis Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Vasanth
> > > Thiagarajan<Vasanth.Thiagarajan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >> > >> + /*
> > > >> > >> + * Fine tuning for when no decent rate was found, the
> > > >> > >> + * lowest should *not* be used under normal circumstances.
> > > >> > >> + */
> > > >> > >> + if (rix == ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[0]) {
> > > >> > >> + DPRINTF(sc, ATH_DBG_RATE, "lowest rate being used, "
> > > >> > >> + "disabling MRR\n");
> > > >> > >> + rates[0].idx = rate_lowest_index(sband, sta);
> > > >> > >> + /* Disable MRR when ath_rc_ratefind_ht() found rate 0 */
> > > >> > >> + rates[1].idx = -1;
> > > >> > >> + }
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think we can still fill other rates (1..3) with the lowest rate
> > > >> > > index as we dont differentiate the situation where the lowest rate
> > > >> > > is chosen truely by the algorithm from this particular case.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I thought about that as well, but does it really make sense for us to
> > > >> > use MRR with the same lowest rate? That's why I just used one segment.
> > > >> > Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >> or we can try for max_retry (4) times. In that case the rate indices of
> > > >> other rates (just not 1) should be made -1 or this segment should
> > > >> moved just below the rate find.
> > > >
> > > > and the next segment [1]
> > > > is set to -1. Please let me know if there is anything else you see needs
> > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > Setting rate index of the rate series[1] is not enough as you are still filling the others rate
> > > > segments(2 and 3) by ath_rc_rate_getidx() in the for..loop, so other segments are also be
> > > > set to -1, but it looks hacky, one clean way of doing this can be, moving you code segment to
> > > > just below ath_rc_ratefind_ht(), like the following diff.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > rate_table = sc->cur_rate_table;
> > > > rix = ath_rc_ratefind_ht(sc, ath_rc_priv, rate_table, &is_probe);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (rix == ath_rc_priv->valid_rate_index[0]) {
> > > > + DPRINTF(sc, ATH_DBG_RATE, "lowest rate being used, "
> > > > + "disabling MRR\n");
> > > > +
> > > > + ath_rc_rate_set_series(rate_table, &rates[0], txrc,
> > > > + 4, rix, 0);
> > >
> > > The above sets the rate[0].idx to rix
> > >
> > > > + rates[0].idx = rate_lowest_index(sband, sta);
> > >
> > > and then here we set it to rate_lowest_index(sband, sta) comes up
> > > with. They should be the same, but this just goes to show we need to
> > > clean this better.
> >
> > I just found this is wrong too.. the rate table used to find
> > rix is different than the rate table for the mode. ie, in 5ghz
> > when associated to an 11n station this could not include any
> > legacy rates.
>
> This is wrong. All basci rates still be used in 11n mode.
Never mind, i think this is only true in 11ng mode
--
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
