On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just for the record, and I was still planning to reply to your other > mail, not trying to hijack this thread at all. > >> I would suggest to expose to user space non-unit index of power save >> aggressiveness which can be mapped to different methods such as >> PS-Poll, dynamic power save or iwlwifi firmware implementation by >> other more reach configurable interface > > I **completely** disagree on this. The non-unit index is a **horrible** > thing because it says **nothing** of interest to the user. The only > approach the user can then take is try which value will give him the > desired behaviour, and it will differ across all hardware combinations. > Therefore, it's completely _useless_. What I suggest is to have rich configuration for setting different parameters so this is more flexible with different HW but in run time only play with single number to create uniform interface for user space. I'm not sure that you want to user jungle with all the numbers, we run empirical tests for very long time how do you want to user space take the decision. > What we really need to do is tie into the pm_qos framework and make > latency guarantees. Even pm_qos doesn't talk directly in language of all PM paramters you need to configure so this is just equivalent to my proposition and can be staged after the legacy PM is implemented. Also PM doesn't map only to traffic requirements. Tomas -- 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
