Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:43840 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbZCXOAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:00:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:47:20 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: Dan Williams , "Guy, Wey-Yi W" , linux-wireless , Kalle Valo , Matthew Garrett , Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: wireless powersaving (in NM?) Message-ID: <20090324134719.GA19335@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20090324_150055_791722_E1D37FF3) References: <1237891149.4320.73.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1237891149.4320.73.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:39:09AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > However, by putting the burden onto drivers, drivers can choose a > conservative power saving level when no application has registered its > pm_qos requirements, and once applications start using the it deeper > power levels can be chosen as appropriate. This still requires some > userspace to turn on power saving to start with, which I think would be > appropriately placed in NM (or connman, of course). I think you've made a good case for pushing the power savings decisions onto the drivers. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.