Kalle Valo wrote: > I'm not sure if I really like this path of having interfaces to > configure driver internals. I suspect that if we add this, we will have > even more later. It's a lot more documenting for us and more work to the > users to understand what parameters they should use. Also this means > that testing will be more challenging as people will use different > values and results won't be comparable. > > Isn't there any other way to solve the problem? Like automatically > changing the value somehow (no idea how) or some other means? We are limiting performance by restricting the fill size. A user will just use the default, which is still the same and remains unchanged. But, having a way to adjust this based on the platform seems reasonable to me and I think trying to change this value dynamically is overkill. > Or if nothing else helps, a crazy idea is to have some sort of platform > profile parameter: > > 0 = auto > 1 = slow > 2 = fast > 3 = superfast (x86) > > And then we would have preset values (not just htt_fill_size) within > ath10k and they get chosen based on the profile configured. I don't think a network driver should limit its performance with such profiles. Moreover, x86 can be slow too - at least, my 4 year old machine is. :-) Sujith -- 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
