Re: RFT: if_ath HAL refactoring

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 06:04:49 PseudoCylon wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian_at_freebsd.org>
> > To: PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy_at_yahoo.ca>
> > Cc: freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org
> > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 7:04:37 AM
> > Subject: Re: RFT: if_ath HAL refactoring
> > 
> > On 21 September 2010 11:58, PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy_at_yahoo.ca>  wrote:
> > > Just in case anyone wonders, I've added 11n support to run(4)  (USB
> > > NIC). http://gitorious.org/run/run/trees/11n_beta2
> > > 
> > >  It still has some issues,
> > > 
> > > * doesn't work well with atheros chips
> > > 
> > >  * HT + AP + bridge = Tx may stall (seems OK with nat)
> > > 
> > > So, use it at your  own discretion.
> > 
> > Want to put together a patch?
> 
> sure!
> 
> > Does it introduce  issues in the non-11n case?
> 
> No, only in 11n mode.
> 
> What I have found so far is that Ralink's driver checks MAC address of
> other end and identify atheros chip by oui. Then, sets special prot mode
> for it. Does this ring a bell?

Are your sure that this is based on the actual MAC addresses? Atheros drivers 
tend to announce additional capabilities in beacons and probe responses.

> Has node lock in ieee80211_node_timeout() cased dead lock in HT + AP +
> bridge?

I'm not aware of any issues there, though, I'm not very familiar with HT use 
cases.

-- 
Bernhard