Am Dienstag 23 Februar 2010 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:33 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > > > 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? > > Yeah, maybe. Could it be useful for userspace to ask for a specific > value with assoc? Though I'm not really sure what it would use ... I don't think so. Basically user space only wants to set parameters like pm_qos and if the configured latency allows us to sleep for x ms we should make use of it to improve battery life. Ok, I'll just update the listen_interval to default to 5 and make use of it in the scan implementation. That should allow us in most cases to leave the channel for around 500ms which is enough time to scan maybe 3-10 channels depending on active/passive flags. Would that be ok for you? 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
