MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4C2A6BA4.8080000@openwrt.org>
References: <AANLkTilG4qxjX0e5u_BGp0YcPoVBbsqd6Hlb8E0j_S8S@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C29284C.5050707@openwrt.org>
	<AANLkTint2L1xSMughBA5aHCFMRB5KMC8EfwcxJJU5XYW@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C2A1776.2080508@openwrt.org>
	<AANLkTik_d6tIKj3otsgaojVBPfvW1lz9OBRujeZLyv1U@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C2A24D2.4070007@openwrt.org>
	<AANLkTikw3l6FIxLtIwxofGaqGQD_b7LO25uu-JV45UL6@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikQz34vgfweDrzH_9_a-BU4dPXbX2UGR61jtJ9n@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C2A6BA4.8080000@openwrt.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:50:48 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhHK461U_qguBGuJjppy5RP2tx5ApasJWVLgr4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ath9k: ap tsf seems random and only uses lower 24 bits or so
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Smedman?= <bjorn.smedman@venatech.se>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

2010/6/29 Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
> I had a similar thought about the multiple invocations thing. I think
> that's a good approach in general, but we need to ensure that we make it
> safe.
> The main point of this function is to detect baseband hangs. If we
> experience such a hang, I'm not sure we will always get enough
> interrupts to do multiple consecutive tests.
> One way to make it safe would be to reschedule the tasklet each time we
> ignore the result of the ath9k_hw_check_alive(), that way we keep the
> detection time low as well. Maybe we could also use a timer for leaving
> 10 ms time between attempts.

The xmit logic has sc->tx_complete_work that periodically checks if
the tx is hung and resets the chip if so. Maybe we could refactor that
into a common periodic health checkup task in main.c that could call
into both xmit.c and recv.c? Or does ath9k_hw_check_alive() have to
run in the interrupt context in some way?

> - Felix

/Bj?rn