From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:59227 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755521AbbDORM5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: <552E9B7C.5080109@codeaurora.org> (sfid-20150415_191300_654291_8EB82109) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:10:20 -0700 From: Peter Oh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kalle Valo CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Peter Oh , Zefir Kurtisi Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath: use PRI value given by spec for fixed PRI References: <1427475590-2198-1-git-send-email-poh@qca.qualcomm.com> <55191D89.2000300@neratec.com> <55198EA4.1010101@codeaurora.org> <551BC2B1.3030002@neratec.com> <551C5C51.8010109@codeaurora.org> <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/15/2015 05:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Peter Oh writes: > >>> As for your patch at hand, I tested it for ETSI and it does not >>> change detector performance, >> The patch is useful when there are many missing pulses within a burst. >> It happens almost every time when channel loading rate is higher than >> 40%, but around 30% channel loading does not miss pulses that much. >> >>> therefore (please replace 16 with PRI_TOLERANCE in the macro) >> I'll do. >> >>> Acked-by: Zefir Kurtisi > So what's the conclusion? Should I wait for v2 or is this good to > commit? I didn't quite get Zefir's comment about PRI_TOLERANCE above. > Please wait for 2nd patches. I'll prepare the patches that do not void this current products certificate. Regards, Peter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YiQsJ-0000IY-N1 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:13:20 +0000 Message-ID: <552E9B7C.5080109@codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:10:20 -0700 From: Peter Oh MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath: use PRI value given by spec for fixed PRI References: <1427475590-2198-1-git-send-email-poh@qca.qualcomm.com> <55191D89.2000300@neratec.com> <55198EA4.1010101@codeaurora.org> <551BC2B1.3030002@neratec.com> <551C5C51.8010109@codeaurora.org> <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Peter Oh , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Zefir Kurtisi On 04/15/2015 05:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Peter Oh writes: > >>> As for your patch at hand, I tested it for ETSI and it does not >>> change detector performance, >> The patch is useful when there are many missing pulses within a burst. >> It happens almost every time when channel loading rate is higher than >> 40%, but around 30% channel loading does not miss pulses that much. >> >>> therefore (please replace 16 with PRI_TOLERANCE in the macro) >> I'll do. >> >>> Acked-by: Zefir Kurtisi > So what's the conclusion? Should I wait for v2 or is this good to > commit? I didn't quite get Zefir's comment about PRI_TOLERANCE above. > Please wait for 2nd patches. I'll prepare the patches that do not void this current products certificate. Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k