On 12/6/19 9:44 AM, Joe Ayers wrote:
Possibly the same symptoms don't exist on 128MB RAM devices.
Like there is some if condition, which is doing some nasty things on 64M
devices? I admit, that I don't have ath10k-ct source code under my pillow, but
it doesn't make much sense to me.
Comparable results between above and my 64MB device. However, if the
sleep time is extended the consumption is more
Ok, I'll let it run overnight with 120s sleep in between.
I suspect this is not the intended behavior.
No its not and it's even strange, that I'm not seeing it here if it should
happen in the "default setup". Maybe its because:
1. You're using custom image (I'm using official prebuilt images)
2. You're not providing all the steps needed to reproduce the issue
3. I've way different hardware
Every detail could make huge difference.
-- ynezz
On the device I am testing, it is both (2GHz) ath9k and (5GHz) ath10k.
These look to be related patches to this issue:
960-0010-ath10k-limit-htt-rx-ring-size.patch
960-0011-ath10k-limit-pci-buffer-size.patch
In the v19.07.0-rc2 build for the rb-nor-flash-16M-ac ar71xx image,
these patches are applied to backports-4.19.85-1, but don't seem to be
applied to ath10k-ct-2019-09-09-5e8cd86f. Should ath10k-ct have
these and other patches? The device's installed packages do include
ath10k-ct (from downloads.openwrt.org installed image).
I think that if you need the patches for upstream ath10k, then you should also
apply
the patches to ath10k-ct.
Platforms with more memory probably do not need or benefit from those patches.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
