2009/7/31 Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 21:25 +0300, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > >> a) We don't need a timer for this, there is no need for accuracy >> even with round_jiffies i think this is a waste of resources. >> Also we don't need to run calibration if we are idle (no interrupts). > > It doesn't sound right to me. > > Can it be that the device gets so miscalibrated during the silence that > it won't be able to receive signal once it's there? Say, the device is > set to channel 1 but it actually listens to channel 3, and there are > some weak beacons on channel 1. > Nope calibration deals mostly with noise immunity, it calculates the noise floor and fixes QAM constellation. It's not related to the synthesizer so it's not related to the channel frequency. > And then there is an issue of the frequency straying outside the > permitted spectrum. Perhaps the transmission will trigger interrupts > and thus recalibration, but in case of scanning, the first probe > requests could be on wrong frequencies. > On each reset we trigger calibration so no worries there. -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick -- 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
