From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:37953 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754638AbcIMSC1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:02:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1473789740.5622.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160913_200230_112754_D6C0AE8F) Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: cap 20MHz VHT bitrate at MCS 8 From: Johannes Berg To: "Pedersen, Thomas" , Ben Greear , linux-wireless Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:02:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1473789454.27738.7.camel@qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1473188417-13987-1-git-send-email-twp@qca.qualcomm.com> <2769a14e-964d-4ec2-9f04-ddd332434b78@candelatech.com> <38049c4f-da5b-a6ec-bcc4-c803197abcd7@qca.qualcomm.com> <1473662637.4201.2.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1473789454.27738.7.camel@qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Yeah so apparently the overhead involved in 256-QAM 5/6 (MCS 9) > results in lower effective bitrate than just using MCS 8 (unless > you're using 3 spatial streams). Ah. I took a - very brief - look at why this one is invalid and couldn't figure it out. > Sounds like a rate control or reporting bug then. > Please drop this. > Ok, thanks. johannes