Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/33] staging: wfx: ignore PS when STA/AP share same channel

From: Dan Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:42:00 +0300

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:36:25PM +0200, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2021 11:33:28 CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jerome Pouiller wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > index 5de9ccf02285..aff0559653bf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/sta.c
> > > @@ -154,18 +154,26 @@ static int wfx_get_ps_timeout(struct wfx_vif *wvif, bool *enable_ps)
> > >               chan0 = wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 0)->vif->bss_conf.chandef.chan;
> > >       if (wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 1))
> > >               chan1 = wdev_to_wvif(wvif->wdev, 1)->vif->bss_conf.chandef.chan;
> > > -     if (chan0 && chan1 && chan0->hw_value != chan1->hw_value &&
> > > -         wvif->vif->type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP) {
> > > -             // It is necessary to enable powersave if channels
> > > -             // are different.
> > > -             if (enable_ps)
> > > -                     *enable_ps = true;
> > > -             if (wvif->wdev->force_ps_timeout > -1)
> > > -                     return wvif->wdev->force_ps_timeout;
> > > -             else if (wfx_api_older_than(wvif->wdev, 3, 2))
> > > -                     return 0;
> > > -             else
> > > -                     return 30;
> > > +     if (chan0 && chan1 && wvif->vif->type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP) {
> > > +             if (chan0->hw_value == chan1->hw_value) {
> > > +                     // It is useless to enable PS if channels are the same.
> > > +                     if (enable_ps)
> > > +                             *enable_ps = false;
> > > +                     if (wvif->vif->bss_conf.assoc && wvif->vif->bss_conf.ps)
> > > +                             dev_info(wvif->wdev->dev, "ignoring requested PS mode");
> > > +                     return -1;
> > 
> > I can't be happy about this -1 return or how it's handled in the caller.
> > There is already a -1 return so it's not really a new bug, though...
> 
> I see what you mean. However,  I remember it is easy to break things
> here and I don't want to change that in a rush. So, I would prefer to
> solve that in a further PR.

Yes.  That's fine.  The return -1 was already there.

regards,
dan carpenter