[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210913104200.GU1935@kadam>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:42:00 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/33] staging: wfx: ignore PS when STA/AP share same
channel
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:36:25PM +0200, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2021 11:33:28 CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > index 5de9ccf02285..aff0559653bf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > @@ -154,18 +154,26 @@ static int wfx_get_ps_timeout(struct wfx_vif *wvif, bool *enable_ps)
> > > chan0 = wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 0)->vif->bss_conf.chandef.chan;
> > > if (wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 1))
> > > chan1 = wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 1)->vif->bss_conf.chandef.chan;
> > > - if (chan0 && chan1 && chan0->hw_value != chan1->hw_value &&
> > > - wvif->vif->type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP) {
> > > - // It is necessary to enable powersave if channels
> > > - // are different.
> > > - if (enable_ps)
> > > - *enable_ps = true;
> > > - if (wvif->wdev->force_ps_timeout > -1)
> > > - return wvif->wdev->force_ps_timeout;
> > > - else if (wfx_api_older_than(wvif->wdev, 3, 2))
> > > - return 0;
> > > - else
> > > - return 30;
> > > + if (chan0 && chan1 && wvif->vif->type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP) {
> > > + if (chan0->hw_value == chan1->hw_value) {
> > > + // It is useless to enable PS if channels are the same.
> > > + if (enable_ps)
> > > + *enable_ps = false;
> > > + if (wvif->vif->bss_conf.assoc && wvif->vif->bss_conf.ps)
> > > + dev_info(wvif->wdev->dev, "ignoring requested PS mode");
> > > + return -1;
> >
> > I can't be happy about this -1 return or how it's handled in the caller.
> > There is already a -1 return so it's not really a new bug, though...
>
> I see what you mean. However, I remember it is easy to break things
> here and I don't want to change that in a rush. So, I would prefer to
> solve that in a further PR.
Yes. That's fine. The return -1 was already there.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists