On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:30 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> Runtime adjustment of no_sleep_autoadjust seems fine, both looking at >> the code and in practice. This makes it easier to test. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> I've been running this patch (and twiddling the setting) for a couple >> months now, and it seems to work fine. I think it's a bit late for >> 2.6.32, even though it's pretty much impossible for this to cause any >> regressions, but it would be nice to see it go in for 2.6.33 until >> no_sleep_autoadjust goes away. >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c >> index 60be976..4eba1ab 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c >> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ >> * adjusting ... >> */ >> bool no_sleep_autoadjust = true; >> -module_param(no_sleep_autoadjust, bool, S_IRUGO); >> +module_param(no_sleep_autoadjust, bool, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR); >> MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_sleep_autoadjust, >> "don't automatically adjust sleep level " >> "according to maximum network latency"); > > I think this change is a bit deceiving since making this writable does > not result in what you write to it at runtime being communicated to the > device. Hmm. It looks like sleep_level_override in debugfs can do exactly what I want. Is there any reason that no_sleep_autoadjust doesn't just make sleep_level_override default to 1? --Andy -- 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
