On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 10:44 -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:
> > > 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.
Right, sorry -- but here it _only_ depends on "support_sm_ps", whereas
> > > + if (priv->cfg->support_sm_ps) {
> > > + /* # Rx chains when idling and maybe trying to save power */
> > > + switch (priv->current_ht_config.sm_ps) {
Here it also depends on current_ht_config.sm_ps, which is not very
useful. Using the AP setting is wrong, and above, assuming
"support_sm_ps" [1] is true, this should just always fall into the
dynamic case so the value "current_ht_config.sm_ps" isn't useful and can
imho be removed.
johannes
[1] which btw I'd have called "use_sm_ps" since all hardware supports it
afaik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
