On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:21:44PM +0530, Varka Bhadram wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 10/07/2014 02:08 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
>
> >This patch adds lifs/sifs handling only if max_frame_retries is above
> >zero. The at86rf2xx datasheets says nothing about phy lifs/sifs
> >handling. I asked the atmel support and they said lifs/sifs is done
> >by phy when max_frame_retries is above zero.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >index 44d2f1d..2a25324 100644
> >--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct at86rf230_local {
> > struct at86rf230_state_change irq;
> > bool tx_aret;
> >+ s8 max_frame_retries;
>
> Why s8 here..? Is there any reason..
>
yep.
> > bool is_tx;
> > /* spinlock for is_tx protection */
> > spinlock_t lock;
> >@@ -1001,6 +1002,9 @@ at86rf230_xmit(struct ieee802154_dev *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > }
> >+ if (lp->max_frame_retries > 0)
> >+ return 0;
> >+
> > /* Interfame spacing time, which is phy depend.
> > * TODO
> > * Move this handling in MAC 802.15.4 layer.
> >@@ -1230,6 +1234,7 @@ at86rf230_set_frame_retries(struct ieee802154_dev *dev, s8 retries)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > lp->tx_aret = retries >= 0;
> >+ lp->max_frame_retries = retries;
this parameter retries is s8. The value "-1" means no ARET handling here.
If you do now u8 at max_frame_retries, then we get a overflow by setting
"-1" here and have a invalid max_frame_retries setting of 255.
Then checking via:
if (lp->max_frame_retries > 0)
doesn't work.
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
