On Wed 17 May 06:14 PDT 2017, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 13:13 +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > > > > > > This code intentionally checked if TX status was requested, and > > > > if not then it doesn't go to the effort of building it. > > > > > > > > > > What I'm finding puzzling is the fact that the only caller of > > > ieee80211_led_tx() is ieee80211_tx_status() and it seems like > > > drivers, such as ath10k, call this for each packet handled - but > > > I'm likely missing something. > > Yes, many drivers do call it for each packet, and as such, this > deficiency was never noted. > > > > > As it is with your patch, it'll go and report the TX status > > > > without any > > > > TX status information - which is handled in > > > > wcn36xx_dxe_tx_ack_ind() > > > > for those frames needing it. > > > > > > > > > > Right, it doesn't sound desired. However, during normal operation > > > I'm not seeing IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS being set and as such > > > ieee80211_led_tx() is never called. > > > > So what's the conclusion? How do we get leds working? > > Well, frankly, I never thought the TX LED was a super good idea - but > it had been supported by the original code IIRC, so never removed. Some > people like frantic blinking I guess ;-) > It seems very important to a lot of people... But if ieee80211_free_txskb() is the counterpart of ieee80211_tx_status() then we should be able to push the ieee80211_led_tx() call down into ieee80211_report_used_skb() and handle both cases. The ieee80211_free_txskb() seems to be used in various cases where we discard skbs, but perhaps this is not an issue in reality. > But I think the problem also applies to the throughput trigger thing, > so perhaps we need to stick some LED feedback calls into other places, > like _noskb() or provide an extra way to do it? > Looking around it seems that we either have a call to free_txskb() or one of the tx_status(); where the _noskb() would need some special handling. Are there others or would it be reasonable to add a call in this one "special" case? Regards, Bjorn
