From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD73CA9EC3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713172086D for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="a5Rfh3m8"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="l1DRo5ol" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726884AbfJaH7L (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 03:59:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:40290 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726769AbfJaH7L (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 03:59:11 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 24E1D60930; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:59:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1572508751; bh=K+P0WmOZtIxLVIqj6uP9thlwD4zxqpwuHAS3xWz18y8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Date:From; b=a5Rfh3m8PdXSfaBIB0v0btKpQlnh0WqLGm6UjAnsdPfMMUCpnpchGl1WoC4KPBWwM eX1+BuJO7gAYQfv/7Mus53RPJ3QcFHDxE/x2AdV8Hs5z0UQZ5VB/HXThHXqm+jPpUN n1ssyA/yKYkch2/GAftAB4fJbDRXKeJ0WGu72Qo8= Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 511CA6034E; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:59:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1572508750; bh=K+P0WmOZtIxLVIqj6uP9thlwD4zxqpwuHAS3xWz18y8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:From; b=l1DRo5olWy6bY7/MZWlCNnmC97O484gG5Y4v142jpfD5QGCiis/6vOj+zeBfLW/k8 N7GarJ5yN4Su3QF4bpRw02iChYe840sgUG1F4By2CmoEHjDj5TEpHF/Qedls2CR41q hydeaEZXDPAstY78tZ+WRDg+Xa6UC5b1pq+CDOUA= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 511CA6034E Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] rtw88: use a module parameter to control LPS enter From: Kalle Valo In-Reply-To: <20191025093345.22643-4-yhchuang@realtek.com> References: <20191025093345.22643-4-yhchuang@realtek.com> To: Cc: , , User-Agent: pwcli/0.0.0-git (https://github.com/kvalo/pwcli/) Python/2.7.12 Message-Id: <20191031075911.24E1D60930@smtp.codeaurora.org> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org wrote: > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang > > If the number of packets is less than the LPS threshold, driver > can then enter LPS mode. > And driver used to take RTW_LPS_THRESHOLD as the threshold. As > the macro can not be changed after compiled, use a parameter > instead. > > The larger of the threshold, the more traffic required to leave > power save mode, responsive time could be longer, but also the > power consumption could be lower. > > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang > Reviewed-by: Chris Chiu I don't think a module parameter should be used to control power save level, instead there should be a generic interface for that. Also the commit log does not give any explanation why this needs to be a module parameter. Tony, there's a high barrier for adding new module parameters. It's a common phrase for me to say "module parameters are not windows .ini files". And to make it easier for everyone always submit controversial patches separately, do not hide within a bigger patchset. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11211881/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches