@ejschwar, I've seen enough forum threads and bug tickets on this subject to conclude that nobody actually knows what is exactly happening. Also, one cannot expect all AP / routers to behave the same. Can anyone find the exact reason for using 0xA11140? I looked at the SDK source code, and it implies throughput difference, but no functionality reduction. What is the difference, versus CYW43_DEFAULT_PM = 0xA11142? Unfortunately the DS is rather thin, the only power save on Table 38 is for Wifi beacon and Rx is mostly the same. So how does 0xA11140 change the link between Pico W and the router?
What does 0xA11140 do exactly, versus 0xA11142? When others suggest 0xA11140, what is the suggestion based on? It has been about 2.5 years since the introduction of Pico W, why isn't this thing on a more solid footing? Or at least classify some routers based on types of anomalous behaviour with Pico Ws?
Suppose a smart AP / router have an activity timeout that causes issues (such as the one in the ticket I saw), what constitutes 'activity' to the router?
Well, I hope you manage to get it solidly stable.![:D]( "Very Happy")
What does 0xA11140 do exactly, versus 0xA11142? When others suggest 0xA11140, what is the suggestion based on? It has been about 2.5 years since the introduction of Pico W, why isn't this thing on a more solid footing? Or at least classify some routers based on types of anomalous behaviour with Pico Ws?
Suppose a smart AP / router have an activity timeout that causes issues (such as the one in the ticket I saw), what constitutes 'activity' to the router?
Well, I hope you manage to get it solidly stable.
Statistics: Posted by katak255 — Thu Dec 26, 2024 4:52 pm