On 2012-04-16 8:30 AM, Daniel Halperin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2012-04-15 8:22 PM, Daniel Halperin wrote: >>> Felix, >>> >>> This whole patch series throws the NICs out of spec compliance. For >>> instance, page 626 of the 802.11-2007 standard (Table 17-15) says that >>> aSIFStime is 32 us in 10 MHz mode and 64 us in 5 MHz mode. >>> >>> This might be okay to do for certain implementations (as, apparently, >>> AR9280/AR9380), but will break compatibility with any device obeying >>> the standard instead. >>> >>> (I wonder that, if this code below still works, then it seems that you >>> might not be properly downclocking the chips' reference clock...) >>> >>> Are you aware there's a standard for this? Why violate it? >> I'm aware that there's a standard for it, but if I put in the standard >> values, the connection gets unreliable to the point where it's almost >> unusable. That's why I chose to use existing products with 5/10 MHz >> support as reference instead. >> > > I hear you, but still suspect the bug's somewhere else. Violating the > standard likely isn't the right choice unless you have a good > reason... it sounds like you don't know why this is happening but this > hack 'seems to work'. > > (UBNT is also ath-based, right? So it's not really proof that this > hack doesn't break compatibility..) Right, UBNT is also ath-based, and I dumped the registers on the device to figure out what parameters they were using, and used those as reference for my ath9k work. I'm not aware of *any* standard compliant 5/10 MHz product out there, do you know any? - Felix -- 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
