On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:51 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 14:29 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Being per packet or global, I'm not an RF engineer to say what's > best, but > > > even if it is global, "last_noise" would still be useful as > "global noise > > > when the last packets was received from this node". > > > > If anything it should be per center freq. Actually, per channel. > The noise value will be missed. It's useful to see the signal to > noise > ratio. I have little trust to the absolute noise values, but I know > that the connection is bad if signal is just 3 dBm above the noise > measured by the same card with the same antenna on the same channel. > > Maybe it would be better to remove per-packet noise only when the > "next > generation noise" is implemented? It could be a batch of patches. Hear hear! Face it, the way we report it right now is utterly broken. Various hardware reports various bogus values, like iwlwifi for example reporting the same noise value that it collected after a beacon over and over again, or just reporting 127 when it had no value. We've been saying that we need something new for years. But those people who want it don't seem to want to lift a finger for getting it. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
