On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:05 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > >> > It'd be interesting to see if we can just treat this as a "minimum awake >> > time", kinda like going back to the range I thought about earlier. >> > >> do you mean something like: >> diff --git a/net/mac80211/mlme.c b/net/mac80211/mlme.c >> index 4274e94..57695e3 100644 >> --- a/net/mac80211/mlme.c >> +++ b/net/mac80211/mlme.c >> @@ -702,11 +702,12 @@ void ieee80211_recalc_ps(struct ieee80211_local >> *local, s32 latency) >> if (latency > (1900 * USEC_PER_MSEC) && >> latency != (2000 * USEC_PER_SEC)) >> timeout = 0; >> - else if (local->dynamic_ps_driver_timeout >= 0) >> - timeout = local->dynamic_ps_driver_timeout; >> else >> timeout = 100; >> } >> + if (timeout && local->dynamic_ps_driver_timeout > timeout) >> + timeout = local->dynamic_ps_driver_timeout; >> + >> local->dynamic_ps_user_timeout = timeout; >> if (!local->disable_dynamic_ps) >> conf->dynamic_ps_timeout = >> >> ? >> >> i don't find it much different. > > I did mean something like that, yes, but I was thinking we actually > calculate the timeout based on latency requirements :) > i think that f(max_latency) -> dynamic_ps_timeout is not well defined, so that's probably why we have to use hardcoded values here. with the current code, i think the original patch is a bit better, as the driver (for whatever reason) will also be able to decrease the timeout. however, i don't mind for either of them. hopefully, the whole ps stuff should be redesigned at some point :) Eliad. -- 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
