public inbox for linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: on radio_enabled
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:26:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1240568807.18031.34.camel@johannes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tz4ed0w7.fsf@litku.valot.fi> (sfid-20090424_082529_965140_23D2B4DF)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1984 bytes --]

On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 09:24 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:
> 
> > Now, if we're going to use radio_enabled more, I wonder whether we
> > should completely deconfigure the hardware when we want to turn off
> > radio_enabled, and then completely reconfigure it once we enable the
> > radio again.
> 
> I assume that you mean op_stop() and op_start() here.

Yes. And all the associated things, see the suspend/resume code.

> > Pros:
> >  * configures all hardware correctly without the driver needing to do
> >    everything by itself
> >  * works with all hardware for sure
> >
> > Cons:
> >  * higher latency
> 
> From stlc45xx and wl12xx perspective I would like to have low latency as
> possible for the radio on/off case. This is what I had in mind:
> 
> interface down:
> 
> o chip is powered off while down
> o ifup uploads firmware and initialises it
> o ifup might take hundreds of milliseconds, at least with 1271
> 
> radio off:
> 
> o chip is powered on
> o firmware possibly sleeping/hibernating
> o radios turned off
> o very low latency (<5 ms) to wakeup
> o small power consuption during radio off
> 
> This way it would be possible to have a bit faster scans when not
> associated (with radio off), but still have a possibility to completely
> turn of chip from user space for a longer periods of time (with
> interface down).

I wonder where the use case for faster scanning is, but I guess the slow
SPI bus really does make for a long delay in initialising due to
firmware upload. I have no trouble with implementing it this way, and
userspace can still set the interfaces down when it wishes to do that,
while we can save a lot of power when userspace doesn't do it that way.


Now, what happens with "iwconfig wlan0 txpower off"? I can't figure out
that one. Should it be completely equivalent to rfkill, regardless of
what rfkill ends up doing?

Thanks,
johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-24 10:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-22 22:39 on radio_enabled Johannes Berg
2009-04-22 22:46 ` Gábor Stefanik
2009-04-24  6:24 ` Kalle Valo
2009-04-24 10:26   ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2009-04-24 14:10     ` Kalle Valo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1240568807.18031.34.camel@johannes.local \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=kalle.valo@iki.fi \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox