Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. It confused me also. I would prefer to have the dynamic_ps_timer stuff in subif and have an explicit timer for the null frames, just to avoid confusion. I'll try to see if I can come up with a patch later on. -- Kalle Valo -- 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
