On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:32:43AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 07:40 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > It turns out that fixing problem #1 (i.e. patch 2) probably isn't > > > necessary with the other changes, as no frames should be sent while > > > off-channel PS is enabled. Does this still seem like a problem worth > > > fixing? > > > > This is incorrect. We actually do need patch 2 for some hardware. I > > forgot that when I was testing with BCM43224 I found that PM gets > > actively set or cleared based on the device configuration. It's > > impossible to enable PS at the AP without informing the driver. > > Hm, don't understand. If we're not sending any packets to the AP, why > does this matter? > > Or are you saying it wants nullfunc frames generated in software, but > then changes the PM bit in them? Exactly. At least that's what it looks like to me. I lack detailed knowledge of how to handle powersave on Broadcom, but I do know that the PM bit is under the control of the MCTL_HPS field. Experimentally it appears that the hardware actively clears PM when this field is 0 and actively sets it when this field is 1, for all frames including nullfuncs. Seth -- 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
