From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:15932 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752072AbbDOMmH (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:42:07 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Peter Oh CC: Zefir Kurtisi , Peter Oh , , 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> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:41:58 +0300 In-Reply-To: <551C5C51.8010109@codeaurora.org> (Peter Oh's message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:00:01 -0700") Message-ID: <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20150415_144211_756801_01AD9929) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. -- Kalle Valo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.38]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YiMeD-0006Yn-4J for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:42:30 +0000 From: Kalle Valo 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> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:41:58 +0300 In-Reply-To: <551C5C51.8010109@codeaurora.org> (Peter Oh's message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:00:01 -0700") Message-ID: <87fv817ecp.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Peter Oh Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Peter Oh , Zefir Kurtisi 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. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k