| Message ID | E1TzDQV-0001Fa-Sp@debian64.localnet (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". > (12bf6f45d1703858) > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and > only a single PHY information packet for all the > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> ACK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". > > (12bf6f45d1703858) > > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and > > only a single PHY information packet for all the > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. > > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> > > ACK OK, I'm confused...this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status". But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" that seems to be different. What a I missing? Is this the right patch to merge? John
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". > > > (12bf6f45d1703858) > > > > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and > > > only a single PHY information packet for all the > > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the > > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. > > > > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> > > > > ACK > > OK, I'm confused... Ah yes, maybe I can explain it. > this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as > "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status". > But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch > posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU > status" that seems to be different. What a I > missing? Nothing I hope. The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after the RFC. Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and "iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that... "the definition in question has always been the same for all hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off to iwlegacy already." Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time, that's why it has a newer date. > Is this the right patch to merge? Yes. Best Regards, Christian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:13PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 08:07:04 PM John W. Linville wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:08:58AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > > > This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". > > > > (12bf6f45d1703858) > > > > > > > > Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and > > > > only a single PHY information packet for all the > > > > subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the > > > > minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. > > > > > > > > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> > > > > > > ACK > > > > OK, I'm confused... > Ah yes, maybe I can explain it. > > > this ACK is for the patch posted on 18 Jan as > > "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status". > > But on the next day (19 Jan) there was a patch > > posted as "[RFC ] iwl4965: report A-MPDU > > status" that seems to be different. What a I > > missing? > Nothing I hope. > > The patch "[PATCH 2/2] iwl4965: report A-MPDU status" might have > the date 2013-01-18, but it was sent on the 26th... A week after > the RFC. > > Note: The RFC is just both patches ("report A-MPDU status" and > "iwlegacy: fix antenna mask") merged into one. I did that because > I wanted to point out the issue of the *shared* bit (antenna mask > vs ampdu indicator). And thankfully, Johannes explained that... > "the definition in question has always been the same for all > hardware. I just didn't fix it for 4965 since it was split off > to iwlegacy already." > > Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time, > that's why it has a newer date. > > > Is this the right patch to merge? > Yes. Cool, thanks for the explanation!
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c index f1dc040..2afc548 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c @@ -725,6 +725,16 @@ il4965_hdl_rx(struct il_priv *il, struct il_rx_buf *rxb) if (rate_n_flags & RATE_MCS_SGI_MSK) rx_status.flag |= RX_FLAG_SHORT_GI; + if (phy_res->phy_flags & RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_AGG_MSK) { + /* We know which subframes of an A-MPDU belong + * together since we get a single PHY response + * from the firmware for all of them. + */ + + rx_status.flag |= RX_FLAG_AMPDU_DETAILS; + rx_status.ampdu_reference = il->_4965.ampdu_ref; + } + il4965_pass_packet_to_mac80211(il, header, len, ampdu_status, rxb, &rx_status); } @@ -736,6 +746,7 @@ il4965_hdl_rx_phy(struct il_priv *il, struct il_rx_buf *rxb) { struct il_rx_pkt *pkt = rxb_addr(rxb); il->_4965.last_phy_res_valid = true; + il->_4965.ampdu_ref++; memcpy(&il->_4965.last_phy_res, pkt->u.raw, sizeof(struct il_rx_phy_res)); } diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h index 829d3b9..3b6c994 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h @@ -1136,6 +1136,7 @@ struct il_wep_cmd { #define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_NARROW_BAND_MSK cpu_to_le16(1 << 3) #define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_ANTENNA_MSK 0x70 #define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_ANTENNA_POS 4 +#define RX_RES_PHY_FLAGS_AGG_MSK cpu_to_le16(1 << 7) #define RX_RES_STATUS_SEC_TYPE_MSK (0x7 << 8) #define RX_RES_STATUS_SEC_TYPE_NONE (0x0 << 8) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h index 37fe553..96f2025 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h @@ -1356,6 +1356,7 @@ struct il_priv { struct { struct il_rx_phy_res last_phy_res; bool last_phy_res_valid; + u32 ampdu_ref; struct completion firmware_loading_complete;
This patch is based on "iwlwifi: report A-MPDU status". (12bf6f45d1703858) Since the firmware will give us an A-MPDU bit and only a single PHY information packet for all the subframes in an A-MPDU, we can easily report the minimal A-MPDU information for radiotap. Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c | 11 +++++++++++ drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h | 1 + drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)