From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:46183 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754545Ab1BOMLc (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:11:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] iwlwifi: Simplify tx queue management From: Johannes Berg To: Nathaniel Smith Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com, ilw@linux.intel.com In-Reply-To: References: <1297619803-2832-1-git-send-email-njs@pobox.com> <1297619803-2832-2-git-send-email-njs@pobox.com> <1297677453.3785.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: <1297771888.3935.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:17 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the devices (but maybe not 3945) implement interrupt > > mitigation at least in some cases. How did you arrive at the conclusion > > that "the driver doesn't actually do any interrupt mitigation"? > > Two reasons: > -- I searched the code and couldn't find any evidence for it > -- If I'm wrong then the quickest way to find out is to make loud > and confident claims in front of people who know better ;-) > I might be wrong. Well, I think you are -- at least for some cases. The driver doesn't need to do anything to implement mitigation, if anything the ucode will do this by itself -- I imagine it'll do this especially for aggregation queues (which I realise aren't relevant in this patch, but still). johannes