Re: [PATCH] iwlcore: Allow runtime configuration of no_sleep_autoadjust

[Andrew Lutomirski <andy@luto.us>]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, reinette chatre
<reinette.chatre@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:30 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> Runtime adjustment of no_sleep_autoadjust seems fine, both looking at
>> the code and in practice.  This makes it easier to test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>
>> ---
>> I've been running this patch (and twiddling the setting) for a couple
>> months now, and it seems to work fine.  I think it's a bit late for
>> 2.6.32, even though it's pretty much impossible for this to cause any
>> regressions, but it would be nice to see it go in for 2.6.33 until
>> no_sleep_autoadjust goes away.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c
>> index 60be976..4eba1ab 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-power.c
>> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
>>   * adjusting ...
>>   */
>>  bool no_sleep_autoadjust = true;
>> -module_param(no_sleep_autoadjust, bool, S_IRUGO);
>> +module_param(no_sleep_autoadjust, bool, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);
>>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_sleep_autoadjust,
>>                "don't automatically adjust sleep level "
>>                "according to maximum network latency");
>
> I think this change is a bit deceiving since making this writable does
> not result in what you write to it at runtime being communicated to the
> device.

Hmm.  It looks like sleep_level_override in debugfs can do exactly what I want.

Is there any reason that no_sleep_autoadjust doesn't just make
sleep_level_override default to 1?

--Andy