On 23 September 2014 16:19, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/23/2014 02:16 AM, Michal Kazior wrote: >> On 19 September 2014 20:28, <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [...] >>> >>> + /* If we are CT firmware, ask it to flush all tids on all peers >>> on >>> + * all vdevs. Normal firmware will just crash if you do this. >>> + */ >>> + if (test_bit(ATH10K_FW_FEATURE_WMI_10X_CT, ar->fw_features)) >>> + ath10k_wmi_peer_flush(ar, 0xFFFFFFFF, peer_addr, >>> 0xFFFFFFFF); >> >> I recall you've explained this some time ago, but can you refresh my >> memory, please? Is this any different from iterating over all peers >> and flushing each? Or does your firmware do so extra magic that is >> impossible to do with normal firmware commands? > > My firmware does that iteration internally. > > You could probably do that in the driver, but it would be a lot > of messages (for all vdevs, all peers, all tids)... > I was not sure if there were limits to the number > of commands you should attempt during the flush... Thanks. I think ath10k should do this instead of having CT-specific flush eventually. I recall I actually did per-peer flushing in RFC patches a long time ago but I didn't pursue getting them merged. I think Denton uses these patches in his setup. They don't flush vdev self-peers though (do you do that internally?). Michał -- 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
