On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 16:36 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:01 +0300, Shahar Levi wrote:
>> > WL12xx FW supports HW channel switch mechanism.
>> > Add HW channel switch support via channel_switch ops.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Shahar Levi <shahar_levi@xxxxxx>
>> > ---
>>
>> [...]
Hi Luca,
>>
>> > +static void wl12xx_op_channel_switch(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>> > + struct ieee80211_channel_switch *ch_switch)
>> > +{
>> > + struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
>> > + int ret;
>> > +
>> > + wl1271_debug(DEBUG_MAC80211, "mac80211 channel switch");
>> > +
>> > + mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
>> > +
>> > + if (unlikely(wl->state == WL1271_STATE_OFF)) {
>> > + mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
>> > + ieee80211_chswitch_done(wl->vif, false);
>> > + return;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + ret = wl1271_ps_elp_wakeup(wl);
>> > + if (ret < 0)
>> > + goto out;
>> > +
>> > + /* send all pending packets */
>> > + wl1271_tx_work_locked(wl);
>>
>> Is this really needed? Can anyone tell why?
I have re- discussed with the FW guys and it seems that when using HW
channel switch sending all TX packet isn't needed.
>
> I checked this a bit further and I don't see the point in sending all
> packets here. In fact, if block_tx is set, we can't even send any more
> frames until the switch happens (or fails). So we should at least check
> this here.
The block_tx is taken into account in the mac layer.
>
> I'm leaving this patch out for now until I understand this better.
Do you prefer me to set v2 without that line or you could fix that in
the apply stage?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
Thanks for your comment.
All the best,
Shahar
--
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
