On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 22:53 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > @@ -3012,6 +3012,10 @@ static int iwl_init_drv(struct iwl_priv *priv)
> > priv->band = IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ;
> >
> > priv->iw_mode = NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION;
> > + if (priv->cfg->support_sm_ps)
> > + priv->current_ht_config.sm_ps = WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DYNAMIC;
> > + else
> > + priv->current_ht_config.sm_ps = WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DISABLED;
>
> Why bother with current_ht_config.sm_ps when ...
This is for keep the ht configuration in single place.
>
> > ht_info->cap |= IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_20;
> > - ht_info->cap |= (IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS &
> > - (WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DISABLED << 2));
> > + if (priv->cfg->support_sm_ps)
> > + ht_info->cap |= (IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS &
> > + (WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DYNAMIC << 2));
> > + else
> > + ht_info->cap |= (IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS &
> > + (WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DISABLED << 2));
>
> here we always and unconditionally advertise dynamic SM-PS mode?
I am confuse, it is based on "priv->cfg->support_sm_ps", so it is not
always dynamic SM-PS mode.
>
> > + if (priv->cfg->support_sm_ps) {
> > + /* # Rx chains when idling and maybe trying to save power */
> > + switch (priv->current_ht_config.sm_ps) {
> > + case WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_STATIC:
> > + case WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DYNAMIC:
> > + idle_cnt = (is_cam) ? IWL_NUM_IDLE_CHAINS_DUAL :
> > + IWL_NUM_IDLE_CHAINS_SINGLE;
> > + break;
> > + case WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_DISABLED:
> > + idle_cnt = (is_cam) ? active_cnt :
> > + IWL_NUM_IDLE_CHAINS_SINGLE;
> > + break;
> > + case WLAN_HT_CAP_SM_PS_INVALID:
> > + default:
> > + IWL_ERR(priv, "invalid sm_ps mode %d\n",
> > + priv->current_ht_config.sm_ps);
> > + WARN_ON(1);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> This _should_ always hit the dynamic case since we've always advertised
> that, were it not for a bug below. And even when powersave is turned off
> the AP will have to do CTS/RTS handshake so we do not gain anything by
> turning on all chains in that case.
>
We only hit the dynamic sm-ps mode if "priv->cfg->support_sm_ps == ture"
case. correct?
> I think the whole ht_config.sm_ps should be removed, and here we should
> always and unconditionally use _SINGLE as that matches what we've
> advertised to the AP via the HT capabilities.
>
> > /* up to 4 chains */
> > @@ -2258,6 +2280,12 @@ static void iwl_ht_conf(struct iwl_priv *priv,
> > >> IEEE80211_HT_MCS_TX_MAX_STREAMS_SHIFT;
> > maxstreams += 1;
> >
> > + ht_conf->sm_ps =
> > + (u8)((ht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SM_PS)
> > + >> 2);
> > + IWL_DEBUG_MAC80211(priv, "sm_ps: 0x%x\n",
> > + ht_conf->sm_ps);
> > +
>
> This is wrong; we cannot use the peer's SM_PS setting for our own SM_PS
> setting, we've advertised dynamic SM PS so we better stick with it. The
> peer's setting has no value for us, it means whether the peer will turn
> off _its_ chains or not.
I agree should not modify the SM_PS setting based on AP
I will submit another patch to remove using AP setting.
>
> johannes
--
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
