On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 19:01 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > > Yeah it's a good question ... but in this case there actually is some > > actual reason for it -- I think it's probably used for BT coexist? > > Obviously the user can't make an informed choice in that scenario, but > > the device might actually be able to? My biggest objection back then was > > that the user has no real reason to play with it, and the latency > > properties of it are better done in other ways. > > > i agree. > however, note that the network_latency can only set the dynamic ps > on/off. it can't control the timeout. Oh, I thought it also controlled the timeout -- I seem to remember at least discussing that back when this got added... johannes -- 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
