On 10/07/2014 02:26 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
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
Thanks..
--
Regards,
Varka Bhadram.
--
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
