On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:13 AM Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:33 PM <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > If the number of packets is less than the LPS threshold, driver > > > can then enter LPS mode. > > > And driver used to take RTW_LPS_THRESHOLD as the threshold. As > > > the macro can not be changed after compiled, use a parameter > > > instead. > > > > > > The larger of the threshold, the more traffic required to leave > > > power save mode, responsive time could be longer, but also the > > > power consumption could be lower. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- Reviewed-by: Chris Chiu <chiu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c | 7 +++++-- > > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/ps.h | 2 -- > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > > > index 7c1b89c4fb6c..bff8a0b129d9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > > > > > @@ -199,8 +202,8 @@ static void rtw_watch_dog_work(struct > > work_struct *work) > > > if (busy_traffic != test_bit(RTW_FLAG_BUSY_TRAFFIC, > > rtwdev->flags)) > > > rtw_coex_wl_status_change_notify(rtwdev); > > > > > > - if (stats->tx_cnt > RTW_LPS_THRESHOLD || > > > - stats->rx_cnt > RTW_LPS_THRESHOLD) > > > + if (stats->tx_cnt > rtw_lps_threshold || > > > + stats->rx_cnt > rtw_lps_threshold) > > > ps_active = true; > > > else > > > ps_active = false; > > > > The naming of 'ps_active' is a bit confusing. Per the commit message, > > it will leave LPS > > it tx/rx count > threshold. But I'll be misled by the name ps_active. > > Does it mean the > > current condition is PS active and ready to power sleep? I'd like to > > rename it to old-fashioned > > 'lps_enter' to represent the action that would be taken. It would be > > easier for me to understand. > > > > Chris > > > > I think according to the context, ps_active is good for me. > But I can still send a separate patch to rename it. > Or you can :) > > Yan-Hsuan OK. Then I have no problem with this patch. Chris
