[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f7b543f6f1d4856af3519a5c108c202@realtek.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:28:40 +0000
From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
CC: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@...il.com>,
"Nitin Gupta" <nitin.gupta981@...il.com>,
Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 RFC 1/9] wifi: rtw88: Clear RTW_FLAG_POWERON early in rtw_mac_power_switch()
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:08 AM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>; Kalle Valo
> <kvalo@...nel.org>; Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@...il.com>; Nitin Gupta
> <nitin.gupta981@...il.com>; Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>; Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC 1/9] wifi: rtw88: Clear RTW_FLAG_POWERON early in rtw_mac_power_switch()
>
> Hello Ping-Ke,
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:29 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > + if (!pwr_on)
> > > + clear_bit(RTW_FLAG_POWERON, rtwdev->flags);
> > > +
> > > pwr_seq = pwr_on ? chip->pwr_on_seq : chip->pwr_off_seq;
> > > ret = rtw_pwr_seq_parser(rtwdev, pwr_seq);
> > > if (ret)
> >
> > This patch changes the behavior if rtw_pwr_seq_parser() returns error while
> > doing power-off, but I dig and think further about this case hardware stays in
> > abnormal state. I think it would be fine to see this state as POWER_OFF.
> > Do you agree this as well?
> I agree with you. Also I think I should have made it clearer in the
> description of the patch that I'm potentially changing the behavior
> (and that this is not an issue in my opinion).
> If there's any problem during the power on/off sequence then we can't
> be fully sure about the power state.
> If you have any suggestions how to improve this then please let me know.
>
No more suggestion for now. Just apply your thought.
Ping-Ke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists