On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 20:15 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > > No, I mean in the timeout > 0 case, what vivek mentioned too. We never > > go back to sleep unless we send a packet. > > First of all, this patchset doesn't change the logic for timeout > 0 > case. But that case was working already earlier, here's my analysis: > > 1. tim bit is set > 2. if timeout > 0 disable power save and send null frame > 3. null frame enables dynamic_ps_timer in ieee80211_master_start_xmit() > 4. after dynamic_ps_timer triggers, power save is enabled again > > I understood that this was the reason why Vivek moved the running of > dynamic_ps_timer from subif to the master interface. Or did I miss > something? Hah, no, you're right, sorry, I got confused. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
