On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just a wild guess, driver may include a small fudge factor to account > for time spent in qcu. At one point I compared all of the initvals > to those from the HAL; we're at least bug-compatible with it if there > are errors here. But, the SIFS and SLOT_TIME values should already account for those times? >From the spec (Section 9.2.10 DCF timing relations): aSIFSTime is: aRxRFDelay + aRxPLCPDelay + aMACProcessingDelay + aRxTxTurnaroundTime. aSlotTime is: aCCATime + aRxTxTurnaroundTime + aAirPropagationTime + aMACProcessingDelay. > >> By the way, I may be completely wrong about some of these things, I'm >> just going off the understanding I have regarding the register values. > > Well mostly no one has looked at them, so you may well have found > some problems. > > FWIW if you use coverage classes (not default), we appear to use the > right values there. I'm going to plead ignorance here and say that I'm not sure what you mean by coverage classes... > > -- > Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com > > _______________________________________________ > ath5k-devel mailing list > ath5k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel > -- 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
