Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:13:01 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org" <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: urtwn and rssi reporting Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=q6Q=oKekE-RPBumcbQPney=-HEht0x_xuY5KdAiaj5w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokSxcCOGAw424-S790wKaf9hAXtoZOD6k6Dyh8uFDhomA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmokSxcCOGAw424-S790wKaf9hAXtoZOD6k6Dyh8uFDhomA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Right. It's because with A-MPDU decap now we're getting the PHY notifications once per frame, not for all frames. I bet TSF is the same. I'll commit something I have here that only updates the RSSI value for a node when we see a value, and just reuses the previous value. I don't know yet if we get the RSSI on the first or last subframe of an A-MPDU; we should test that and document it. -adrian On 5 April 2016 at 21:00, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > hiya, > > I've noticed that RSSI reporting during active traffic seems > unreliable. I'm guessing that we're only getting RSSI reports every > handful of frames now (which may be because we're doing RX AMPDU; not > sure!) and so the report tends to be unreliable. > > Any ideas? > > > -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=q6Q=oKekE-RPBumcbQPney=-HEht0x_xuY5KdAiaj5w>