Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > The problem here is that the latency at least cannot be used in any >> > simple and/or general way I can think of to control the dynamic PS >> > timeout. >> >> Can't you do something like this: >> >> pm_qos >= 1000 -> timeout 0 ms (aka. full power save) >> pm_qos <= 100 -> timeout 100 ms >> pm_qos <= 50 -> timeout 300 ms >> >> That is, just some arbitrary numbers but which affect dynamic ps >> timeout. I haven't thought about the numbers at all, but they actually >> don't matter because it's easy to change them inside mac80211. > > Theoretically I could, but I'm pretty sure whatever values I would > choose would be unacceptable by others, as they would be tuned for a > specific use. I don't see a problem with that. The current use of pm_qos is very limited, I think it's all positive if we start using it more. > Also, although AFAIK barely anyone uses the DTIM interval which is > determined based on th pm_qos, adding arbitrary rules like this to the > side risks breaking something for someone. AFAIK the pm_qos values are not set in stone in any. Applications just request something and kernel can do whatever it wants, even ignore it. So I don't see any harm if we change how mac80211 uses pm_qos values. And most probably this will change many times in the future. -- 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
