From: Jun Sun (jsun_at_junsun.net)
Date: 2002-07-21 05:35:26 UTC
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 12:13:30PM +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 11:38:50AM +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> > I haven't noticed this on any of the systems I'm using (though, I
> > haven't really looked for it either). Is there anything special about
> > the system that sees this?
>
> This was just because I was not looking.. Indeed there will be an
> interrupt with no real events after hfa384x_cmd().
>
> > Some minor changes can be done by first reading resp0 and status to
> > local variables and then ACK EV_CMD. After this, do res = local_resp0 &
> > (bits) and the #ifndef final_version block before
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore. However, this will have only a tiny delay
> > between ACK and irq restore and might not help at all. How long delay
> > you used to get rid of those extra interrupts?
>
> I did some quick tests and this minor change did not have any noticeable
> efect as expected. I needed to add udelay(4) before irqrestore to get
> rid of the extra interrupts.
I replied a little too quick. :-) Good to know you notice it and got the number.
> However, as I said, this should not be a
> problem in any other case than possibly with power saving stations.
> Other RX/TX paths do not use hfa384x_cmd() and do not thus produce these
> extra interrupts.
>
Good to know that too. Thanks.
Jun