On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 12:23 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.
Right, I already fix it and not reference to AP's setting. Thanks
>
> [1] which btw I'd have called "use_sm_ps" since all hardware supports it
> afaik
That is a good point. On the other hand, I think it will make more sense
shoice the sm_ps mode in priv->conf instead of just a boolean value of
"use" or "not" use.
I will submit another patch to fix this.
--
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
