ath9k: Added get_survey callback in
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Added get_survey callback in
Hi,
recently we've been organising work that would happen in the area of get_survey. Seems that Benoit is already working in the field pretty much - we waited for Holger's mac80211 patch to be publicly available... and the waiting is paying off now, it seems.
Anyway, our interest is to have the noise (someone else's signal in terms of Shannon) on all channels. This shall be not so fast operation. It is good to have faster only-for-one-channel option as well. We are happy to help so if Benoit could show us a good area, we could start the work in the very near future. I look forward to Benoit to contact us. If You gonna do it solo, we just have to wait a bit more...
Jouni's comment was the most welcomed as it is the first time I see any pondering and discussion on design purposes and design decisions. Am I following too low-level mailing list or am I just so out of the clue what's happening...?
So far we've bumped into this calibration thing, it is not too fast, but it is the way we've done digging out the noise in the current implementation. We do not exactly like this solution but we've made some progress with it.
...and I can't help it but I have to say that wherever signal strength is available, noise should be available, too, in similar API or in the same data struct. This is because SNR is vital information in any possible case.
Kind regards,
Anton
--
Anton Puolakka, VP Product Development
http://www.7signal.com gsm:// +358 (45) 1234 020
What 7signal is about in 100 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbN4JZTu7M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20100430/c23f8aac/attachment.htm
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Added get_survey callback in
Anton Puolakka a ?crit :
Quoted 8 lines
Hi,
recently we?ve been organising work that would happen in the area of
get_survey. Seems that Benoit is already working in the field pretty much ? we waited for Holger?s mac80211 patch to be publicly available? and the waiting is paying off now, it seems.
Quoted 7 lines
Anyway, our interest is to have the noise (someone else?s signal in terms of Shannon) on all channels. This shall be not so fast operation. It is good to have faster only-for-one-channel option as well. We are happy to help so if Benoit could show us a good area, we could start the work in the very near future. I look forward to Benoit to contact us. If You gonna do it solo, we just have to wait a bit more?
That was just a pretty straightforward patch since I was using debugfs last_noise file before.
Quoted 6 lines
Jouni?s comment was the most welcomed as it is the first time I see any pondering and discussion on design purposes and design decisions. Am I following too low-level mailing list or am I just so out of the clue what?s happening??
Yup, I'm very open to design discussion as well. I don't find get_survey very convenient for my needs. Basically, I need signal & noise to compute SNR for peer nodes, this means I need to sample signal & noise at the same time. As such, having those value per packet was quite convenient.
Digging into the details, the signal reported by the card is the the difference compared to the configured noise floor (and noise floor is not the same thing as noise to me). This means that noise floor calibration needs to be done properly and it takes some time (how much? I don't know).
Then, we need "noise" as "someone's else" signal like you mentioned. I think we could use some value from the noise floor calibration to do that. It's just an idea, maybe it's better suited to use a fixed noise of -101 dBm anyway. At least, the definition chosen needs to be compatible with computing SNR for each peer node.
Quoted 11 lines
So far we?ve bumped into this calibration thing, it is not too fast, but it is the way we?ve done digging out the noise in the current implementation. We do not exactly like this solution but we?ve made some progress with it.
?and I can?t help it but I have to say that wherever signal strength is available, noise should be available, too, in similar API or in the same data struct. This is because SNR is vital information in any possible case.
I agree. I don't know exactly how it could be done with mac80211 currently.
Quoted 5 lines
Kind regards,
Anton
Quoted 9 lines
--
Anton Puolakka, VP Product Development
http://www.7signal.com gsm:// +358 (45) 1234 020
*What 7signal is about in 100 seconds:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbN4JZTu7M
Regards,
Benoit
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Added get_survey callback in
Hi,
You can be *SURE* that the hardware has the capability of "measuring"
lots of things about the incoming signal(s).
Some of the manufacturer provided drivers may give clues as to what and
where these are.
I have always felt that a real-time monitoring of the memory used by
the driver would probably give lots of worthwhile information as to what was really going on.
Just gotta get someone to fund the effort :).
warm regards,
wiz
Quoted 76 lines · Benoit PAPILLAULT
Anton Puolakka a ?crit :
Quoted 8 lines
Hi,
recently we?ve been organising work that would happen in the area of
get_survey. Seems that Benoit is already working in the field pretty much ? we waited for Holger?s mac80211 patch to be publicly available? and the waiting is paying off now, it seems.Quoted 7 lines
Anyway, our interest is to have the noise (someone else?s signal in terms of Shannon) on all channels. This shall be not so fast operation. It is good to have faster only-for-one-channel option as well. We are happy to help so if Benoit could show us a good area, we could start the work in the very near future. I look forward to Benoit to contact us. If You gonna do it solo, we just have to wait a bit more?
That was just a pretty straightforward patch since I was using debugfs
last_noisefile before.Quoted 6 lines
Jouni?s comment was the most welcomed as it is the first time I see any pondering and discussion on design purposes and design decisions. Am I following too low-level mailing list or am I just so out of the clue what?s happening??
Yup, I'm very open to design discussion as well. I don't find
get_surveyvery convenient for my needs. Basically, I need signal & noise to compute SNR for peer nodes, this means I need to sample signal & noise at the same time. As such, having those value per packet was quite convenient.Digging into the details, the signal reported by the card is the the difference compared to the configured noise floor (and noise floor is not the same thing as noise to me). This means that noise floor calibration needs to be done properly and it takes some time (how much? I don't know).
Then, we need "noise" as "someone's else" signal like you mentioned. I think we could use some value from the noise floor calibration to do that. It's just an idea, maybe it's better suited to use a fixed noise of -101 dBm anyway. At least, the definition chosen needs to be compatible with computing SNR for each peer node.
Quoted 11 lines
So far we?ve bumped into this calibration thing, it is not too fast, but it is the way we?ve done digging out the noise in the current implementation. We do not exactly like this solution but we?ve made some progress with it.
?and I can?t help it but I have to say that wherever signal strength is available, noise should be available, too, in similar API or in the same data struct. This is because SNR is vital information in any possible case.
I agree. I don't know exactly how it could be done with mac80211 currently.
Quoted 5 lines
Kind regards,
Anton
Quoted 9 lines
--
Anton Puolakka, VP Product Development
http://www.7signal.com gsm:// +358 (45) 1234 020
*What 7signal is about in 100 seconds:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbN4JZTu7MRegards,
Benoit_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel