Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:01 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> My concern here is that we will end up having, yet again, complicated >> user space interface for power save. The ideal situation would be that >> kernel would configure all this automatically and we would have a >> simple interface just to disable power save in cases where it doesn't >> work (broken APs etc). > > I'm not actually sure that there are APs broken wrt. SM PS, it seems > highly unlikely -- even if there are (like mac80211!!) the rate control > algorithm would recover the situation. Oh, that's good. > As such, I suppose it's somewhat a debugging API. On the other hand, > there are actual traffic throughput consequences of enabling SM PS, even > when in powersave. Powersave will be turned off automatically if there's > enough traffic, but SM PS won't. The default, automatic, means it just > follows powersave (dynamic SM PS if on, no SM PS if off), but I'm not > sure that is typically desirable. > > Of course, on the other hand, I don't see many users actually setting > it. An alternative could be to try to estimate traffic, but that gets > messy fairly quickly because the thresholds depend on the environment. I think at some point we need to start estimating the traffic somehow and having heuristics to dynamically change the power save settings. But it's a huge challenge, so it isn't coming anytime soon. > If you prefer to leave it out for now, I can probably move it to debugfs > until we have a more clearly defined use case, Great if you can convert it to debugfs for now. That way we have a bit more time to think about the power save interface. Thanks. > although if we decide that we never want it then obviously the > action frame handling can go away again. Yeah. -- 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
