From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
We WLAN is idle we can some better bandwidth to FTP by
setting STOMP_LOW_FTP where stomping the FTP BT is pretty
much reduced when compared to setting STOMP_LOW weight.
we calculate WLAN is idle by taking into account of the
rx data packets, so ensure that we take into account
of data packets(ignore beacons).
Also update bt_wait_time even if the chip is NETWORK SLEEP
mode. This should help BT throughput when WLAN is idle,
when everything else is fine :)
Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
index bf7d29e..97d1ed4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
@@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ static void ath_btcoex_period_timer(unsigned long data)
spin_lock_irqsave(&sc->sc_pm_lock, flags);
if (sc->sc_ah->power_mode == ATH9K_PM_NETWORK_SLEEP) {
+ btcoex->bt_wait_time += btcoex->btcoex_period;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->sc_pm_lock, flags);
goto skip_hw_wakeup;
}
@@ -214,7 +215,6 @@ static void ath_btcoex_period_timer(unsigned long data)
ath_detect_bt_priority(sc);
is_btscan = test_bit(BT_OP_SCAN, &btcoex->op_flags);
- btcoex->bt_wait_time += btcoex->btcoex_period;
if (btcoex->bt_wait_time > ATH_BTCOEX_RX_WAIT_TIME) {
if (ar9003_mci_state(ah, MCI_STATE_NEED_FTP_STOMP) &&
(mci->num_pan || mci->num_other_acl))
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c
index 4480c0c..9b2a8cc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c
@@ -1105,7 +1105,10 @@ int ath_rx_tasklet(struct ath_softc *sc, int flush, bool hp)
else
rs.is_mybeacon = false;
- sc->rx.num_pkts++;
+ if (ieee80211_is_data_present(hdr->frame_control) &&
+ !ieee80211_is_qos_nullfunc(hdr->frame_control))
+ sc->rx.num_pkts++;
+
ath_debug_stat_rx(sc, &rs);
/*
--
1.7.0.4
Hi Holger,
On Friday 28 September 2012 02:30 PM, Holger Schurig wrote:
>> We WLAN is idle we can some better bandwidth to FTP by
>> setting STOMP_LOW_FTP where stomping the FTP BT is pretty
>> much reduced when compared to setting STOMP_LOW weight.
>
> I understand that english isn't your first language (and neither is it
> mine). But this is quite unintelligible.
:) :)
apologies, I simply missed the commit log line, Its been sent as an RFC
sometime and yesterday I sent the patch, apparently not much looking
into the commit log :). Definitely its not correct and thanks for
pointing this out. Will send a v2!
>
> Beside wrong words (We/When) it doesn't also really say what is going
> on. What, for example, is FTP ? How can you assume that this is
> generally known? For sure it's not the file transfer protocol. Same
> with "FTP BT".
sure I would make it clear in the v2.
>
> Also, "we can some better bandwidth" misses a verb. "take into account
> of data packets" is weird, too.
sure, I will change in v2.
>
> Confused.
>
thanks a lot for your review and comments!
--
thanks,
shafi
> We WLAN is idle we can some better bandwidth to FTP by
> setting STOMP_LOW_FTP where stomping the FTP BT is pretty
> much reduced when compared to setting STOMP_LOW weight.
I understand that english isn't your first language (and neither is it
mine). But this is quite unintelligible.
Beside wrong words (We/When) it doesn't also really say what is going
on. What, for example, is FTP ? How can you assume that this is
generally known? For sure it's not the file transfer protocol. Same
with "FTP BT".
Also, "we can some better bandwidth" misses a verb. "take into account
of data packets" is weird, too.
Confused.