On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 10:17 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > But shouldn't you trust the drivers using IW_QUAL_DBM, whether the value > > is positive or negative? > > You can't remove the test, making the rest pointeless. Old > style driver never used the flags, new style driver that don't report > dBm will never use the flags, and there is not way to dinstinguish > both, apart from the 'sign' of the value.
I used "new style driver" as synonymous to the driver using IW_QUAL_DBM and "old style driver" as the one that doesn't use IW_QUAL_DBM. I don't think any drivers need to specify both dBm and non-dBm data for the same device. Drivers that give non-dBm data are already well served by wireless tools. They don't need to change. Drivers that give dBm data had to limit the data to avoid its misinterpretation as non-dBm data. Now IW_QUAL_DBM is supposed to free drivers from such checks. But it doesn't deliver its promise, because the data can still be misinterpreted, just is a different way. Namely, a strong signal (0dBm) can be interpreted as an incredibly weak signal (-256dBm). That's what I want to see fixed. One tricky case would be when the driver sets the max signal e.g. to 30 and reports 35 (i.e. a positive value within the "reasonable" dBm range). I would probably prefer to show it as 30/30 rather than 35dBm, but the driver is nuts anyway, and I'm not really concerned about it to write an extra line of code. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
