Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:22221 "EHLO mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753689Ab0CZKyh (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:54:37 -0400 From: Luciano Coelho To: linville@tuxdriver.com Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Juuso Oikarinen Subject: [PATCH 20/24] wl1271: Disconnect if PSM entry fails Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:53:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1269600813-32145-21-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1269600813-32145-1-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> References: <1269600813-32145-1-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Juuso Oikarinen If PSM entry fails despite of retries, assume that the AP has been lost, and indicate connection loss to the mac80211. This is much safer than remaining in active mode. Signed-off-by: Juuso Oikarinen Reviewed-by: Luciano Coelho Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho --- drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_event.c | 21 +++------------------ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_event.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_event.c index 0e0808f..4fc212a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_event.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_event.c @@ -82,15 +82,8 @@ static int wl1271_event_ps_report(struct wl1271 *wl, true); } else { wl1271_error("PSM entry failed, giving up.\n"); - /* FIXME: this may need to be reconsidered. for now it - is not possible to indicate to the mac80211 - afterwards that PSM entry failed. To maximize - functionality (receiving data and remaining - associated) make sure that we are in sync with the - AP in regard of PSM mode. */ - ret = wl1271_ps_set_mode(wl, STATION_ACTIVE_MODE, - false); wl->psm_entry_retry = 0; + *beacon_loss = true; } break; case EVENT_ENTER_POWER_SAVE_SUCCESS: @@ -180,16 +173,8 @@ static int wl1271_event_process(struct wl1271 *wl, struct event_mailbox *mbox) return ret; } - if (wl->vif && beacon_loss) { - /* Obviously, it's dangerous to release the mutex while - we are holding many of the variables in the wl struct. - That's why it's done last in the function, and care must - be taken that nothing more is done after this function - returns. */ - mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex); - ieee80211_beacon_loss(wl->vif); - mutex_lock(&wl->mutex); - } + if (wl->vif && beacon_loss) + ieee80211_connection_loss(wl->vif); return 0; } -- 1.6.3.3