Skip to contentSkip to conversation

iwl4965: report A-MPDU status

PATCH In review Christian Lamparter 3 participants 5 messages Jan 26, 2013 – Jan 30, 2013 Networking drivers (wireless)

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 iwl4965: report A-MPDU status

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.

---
 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(+)
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/4965-mac.c +11 -0
index f1dc040..2afc548 100644
@@ -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));
 }
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/commands.h +1 -0
index 829d3b9..3b6c994 100644
@@ -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)
drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/common.h +1 -0
index 37fe553..96f2025 100644
@@ -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;
 
Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
#1 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Christian Lamparter

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.

ACK

#2 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Stanislaw Gruszka
Quoted 8 lines · Christian Lamparter

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.

Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines

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

Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected]			might be all we have.  Be ready.
#3 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 9 lines · Stanislaw Gruszka
Quoted 8 lines · Christian Lamparter

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.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines

ACK

OK, I'm confused...

Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.

Quoted 6 lines

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.

Quoted 1 line

Is this the right patch to merge?

Yes.

Best Regards,
Christian

#4 lore raw
Quoted 39 lines · Christian Lamparter
Quoted 10 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 9 lines · Stanislaw Gruszka
Quoted 8 lines · Christian Lamparter

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.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines

ACK

OK, I'm confused...

Ah yes, maybe I can explain it.

Quoted 6 lines

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."

Quoted 5 lines

Note2: I had to edit the patch "fix antenna mask" a second time, that's why it has a newer date.

Quoted 1 line

Is this the right patch to merge?

Yes.

Cool, thanks for the explanation!

Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected]			might be all we have.  Be ready.