From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bob Copeland Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:24:09 -0500 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ath5k-devel] [PATCH/RFC/RFT 0/4] ANI support for ath5k In-Reply-To: <1261774261-16142-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> References: <1261774261-16142-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bob Copeland wrote: > I can't say yet whether it is better or not compared to with no ANI. > Please test and let us know how it goes. So I can at least now say that there are lots more interrupts. Partly because we assert SWI frequently, but also maybe because of MIB counters etc. So I think this needs to be addressed in my patchset before going forward. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com