From: Kalle Valo > <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> > > I don't think a module parameter should be used to control power save > level, instead there should be a generic interface for that. Also the commit > log does not give any explanation why this needs to be a module parameter. > > Tony, there's a high barrier for adding new module parameters. It's a > common > phrase for me to say "module parameters are not windows .ini files". And to > make it > easier for everyone always submit controversial patches separately, do not > hide > within a bigger patchset. > Alright, I was thinking module parameters as a convenient tool for driver to control the behavior for debugging or out-of-band adjusting. But it seems like you treat it more carefully. Actually this is just going to allow us to set different default values for different use cases. So is there a better way to control it. Or I should just change the value to a better one. By our experience, set this to 50 is a more reasonable value, such that some web surfing or background traffic wouldn't make the driver to leave PS mode. Yan-Hsuan
