BTW- is ANI _not_ applied on broadcast traffic? I notice that monitoring the signal strength of beacons does not show this behavior. Maybe not applied for localization reasons? - George On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, George Nychis <gnychis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Holger, > > Thanks a bunch for your response! I had read about ANI before on the > list, it would be interesting to know if this is the cause for this. > It definitely seems plausible. I will dig around the ath9k code and > see if I can narrow down this to the cause. > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM, George Nychis <gnychis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Holger, >> >> Thanks a bunch for your response! I had read about ANI before on the >> list, it would be interesting to know if this is the cause for this. It >> definitely seems plausible. I will dig around the ath9k code and see if I >> can narrow down this to the cause. >> >> - George >> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Holger Schurig >> <holgerschurig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> This is probably due to ANI (adapative noise immunity). I think ath9k >>> does too much here, in other words: it doesn't just kick in if there >>> are too strong signals there. Instead it seems to always adjust the >>> input attenuator, needed or not. >> >> -- 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
