On Thu, 21 May 2026 22:31:03 +0200,
Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 10:19:49PM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 01:02:13AM +0200, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> > 
> > > tech@,
> > > 
> > > I think that Report RSSI as percentage, it is more user friendly than dBm.
> > > 
> > > So, here I've used the same conversion logic as iwx for both qwz and qwx.
> > > 
> > > Ok?
> > 
> > I prefer the % display as well, and the diff works fine with my qwz.
> > So basically ok mglocker@, but maybe it would be good to have stsp@'s
> > feedback as well before we go ahead committing it.
> 
> What is most important here is that the values reported to the stack
> make sense relative to the background scan / roaming thresholds:
> 
> #define IEEE80211_RSSI_THRES_2GHZ		(-60)	/* in dBm */
> #define IEEE80211_RSSI_THRES_5GHZ		(-70)	/* in dBm */
> #define IEEE80211_RSSI_THRES_RATIO_2GHZ		60	/* in percent */
> #define IEEE80211_RSSI_THRES_RATIO_5GHZ		50	/* in percent */
> 
> Do you have multiple APs that share an SSID to test roaming with?
>

Yes, I do, that you would like to test?

> > >  /* Antenna noise floor */
> > >  #define ATH11K_DEFAULT_NOISE_FLOOR -95
> > > +#define QWX_MIN_DBM	-100
> > > +#define QWX_MAX_DBM	-33	/* realistic guess */
> 
> Is this really just a guess? Or did you get this number from somewhere?
>
> I don't think this number is unreasonable (the theoretical max was -20dBm
> if I recall correctly?) But we should be sure that the range makes sense
> for this device, which may behave differently to the Intel ones since
> RSSI is a vendor-specific heuristic. If we now end up always reporting
> 50% or less then we would constantly be trying to roam. And if we never
> fall below 50% anymore then we will never try to roam. If we're somewhere
> between those two extremes that's ok and we can keep tweaking it if needed.

This numbers came from iwx with exact comment :-)

Probably we shoud standartized them.

-- 
wbr, Kirill