Re: [RFC] ath9k: remove ath9k_rate_control

[Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>]

On 2013-02-28 7:53 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 28 February 2013 05:09, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> 
>>> The same could be said of PID...
>> I agree, we should remove that one as well.
> 
> One of the advantages of having multiple RC modules - even if they're
> not longer optimal - is to keep the API honest. :-)
> 
> I still keep onoe/amrr working in FreeBSD's ath(4) driver, primarily
> to make sure that I don't change the API without thinking too much
> about what other rate control modules do, but also to provide a
> simpler example of how the API works.
In that case I'd rather keep PID than the ath9k rate control. The ath9k
rate control is a horrible example of how to use the rate control API,
and fixing that is a waste of time in my opinion.
By the way, minstrel and minstrel_ht are two mostly separate
implementations using the same API, except for the fact that minstrel_ht
falls back to minstrel for legacy clients. So we already do have
multiple examples here :)

> Personally, I'd like to see more examples of rate control modules in
> LInux/FreeBSD, especially ones that start demanding more 802.11 state
> (ie, air-time QoS.)
Do you have any good ideas on what state information would be useful for
a rate control to demand?

- Felix