On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 11:42 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote: >> Treat a single connected STA in PSM as a slow link and regulate Tx speed >> according to slow link priority/stop thresholds. >> This allows us to avoid flooding the FW, while delivering decent >> throughput to a peer in forced-PSM. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c >> index 3836dbd..ada4616 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl18xx/main.c >> @@ -1446,10 +1446,11 @@ static bool wl18xx_lnk_high_prio(struct wl1271 *wl, u8 hlid, >> return false; >> >> /* the priority thresholds are taken from FW */ >> - if (test_bit(hlid, (unsigned long *)&wl->fw_fast_lnk_map)) >> - thold = status_priv->tx_fast_link_prio_threshold; >> - else >> + if (!test_bit(hlid, (unsigned long *)&wl->fw_fast_lnk_map) || >> + test_bit(hlid, (unsigned long *)&wl->ap_fw_ps_map)) >> thold = status_priv->tx_slow_link_prio_threshold; >> + else >> + thold = status_priv->tx_fast_link_prio_threshold; > > Am I missing something or is this kind of inverted logic? For some > reason I always think it is simpler to have something like this: > > if (fast_link && !ps) > thold = fast; > else > thold = slow; I guess it's a bit simpler. I really don't mind. You can change it on commit I guess? Arik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
