Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([46.4.11.11]:38878 "EHLO nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932855Ab1ISWXB (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:23:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4E77C0BF.50108@openwrt.org> (sfid-20110920_002313_572570_3DC6A91A) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:22:55 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ath9k_hw: clean up tx power handling References: <1316453903-75710-1-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <1316453903-75710-2-git-send-email-nbd@openwrt.org> <4E77AAFB.1080805@openwrt.org> <4E77B25D.9070907@openwrt.org> <4E77BC58.7040204@openwrt.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2011-09-20 12:13 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>> On 2011-09-19 11:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I looked at the other ath driver and I see no indication that it's >>>>>> related >>>>>> to DFS in any way. >>>>> >>>>> I have verified this just now as well, it seems it was only used to >>>>> support an ioctl to userspace to enable users to update a tpscale >>>>> value but I see no documentation about this. Next question is who in >>>>> usersapce sets this. I wonder if its done through userspace after >>>>> measuring some TPC reports from STAs. >>>> >>>> So this comes from supporting a "TR-098" specification, which seems to >>>> be the "Internet Gateway Device data model for the CPE WAN Management >>>> Protocol". I haven't yet been able to map this to the specification >>>> respective component: >>>> >>>> http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-098.pdf >>> >>> Interesting. That definitely supports my point that ath9k is the wrong place >>> for something like this to be. Let's just get rid of it. >> >> Yeah, I'm now convinced :) die code. But please do add some blurb >> about this tumor the code had. > > In fact removing the tumor through a separate patch would be appreciated. I don't think it needs a separate patch. It's dead code directly related to the other things that I'm changing, and it does not add any functional changes. I'll add a comment, though. - Felix