On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 16:07 +0100, Marco Porsch wrote: > > I guess you can tell I'm not in a good mood today. I think any use of > > get_tsf() for operation is a complete waste of time, there's no way you > > can get the timings correct. You could be preempted, and suddenly sleep > > for a few tens or hundreds milliseconds, so none of this makes any > > sense... To properly do it you have to do calculations in relative times > > and let the device apply them. > > I don't get your last sentence here. Maybe you can elaborate? I'm saying what could happens is this: tsf = drv_get_tsf() [be preempted, 100ms later] do_something_with(tsf) so I think using drv_get_tsf() is pretty much always wrong. > Concerning timestamp vs. TSF usage; wow - I tested it when using the > timestamp value for TBTT scheduling. Works fine. Works even better than > TSF as it slightly reduces the measured wakeup overhead. > > Hm, I was sure the TSF as in *now* would be more appropriate than the > TSF at receipt time... But either way, if it works better and is less > ugly, it is a win-win =) > > I'll send an updated patch with the more intuitive API. :) johannes -- 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
