From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from z5.mailgun.us ([104.130.96.5]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kVHle-00039O-Sk for ath11k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:19:21 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add command for ap power save References: <1598257589-19091-1-git-send-email-vnaralas@codeaurora.org> <4b4a0d79a243c1c3b8044730da0493c96ba294bf.camel@sipsolutions.net> <871rilf2th.fsf@codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:19:10 +0300 In-Reply-To: (vnaralas@codeaurora.org's message of "Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:09:44 +0530") Message-ID: <87eelr1oq9.fsf@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath11k" Errors-To: ath11k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: vnaralas@codeaurora.org Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org vnaralas@codeaurora.org writes: > On 2020-09-29 13:10, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Johannes Berg writes: >> >>> On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 13:56 +0530, Venkateswara Naralasetty wrote: >>>> AP power save feature is to save power in AP mode, where AP goes >>>> to power save mode when no stations associate to it and comes out >>>> of power save when any station associate to AP. >>> >>> Why do you think this requires a vendor command? I mean, that seems >>> like >>> fairly reasonable - even by default - behaviour? >> >> I have not studied the details, but doesn't AP power save break normal >> functionality? For example, I would guess probe requests from clients >> would be lost. So there's a major drawback when enabling this, right? > > This AP power save feature will not break any functionality, Since one > chain is always active and all other chains will be disabled when this > feature is enabled. AP can still be able to beacon and receive probe > request from the clients. The only drawback is reduced network range > when this feature is enabled. Hence, we don't want to enable it by > default. Yeah, we really would not want to enable that by default. But what should be the path forward, a vendor command or a proper nl80211 command? Any opinions? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches -- ath11k mailing list ath11k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k