Am Dienstag 23 Februar 2010 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Should we also consider the current listen_interval for deciding how > > long > > we could stay away from the operating channel? That should prevent us > > from losing too many frames but since most drivers don't register a > > max_listen_interval we usually end up with a listen_interval of > > 1 which is quite short (which means only scanning one channel in a > > row). > > > > Kalle, Johannes, how is the listen_interval handled in the powersave > > code? > > Are we only sleeping for one beacon interval or are we ignoring the > > listen_interval currently. > > I figured this listen interval stuff would come back to bite us at some > point. I don't think we should negotiate a listen interval of 1. OTOH, > I'm not convinced that all APs would reject it with a status code of 51 > if it's too large? Or is that tested anywhere like WFA? No idea. However for iwlwifi for example we always used a listen interval of 20 any I never saw any associations getting rejected because of this. So maybe we could just increase the default to something between 5 and 10 to be on the safe side? > In any case, right now the powersave code pretty much ignores it, > although that's not really a good plan. Right. Helmut -- 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
