From: <Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com>
To: <davidm@egauge.net>
Cc: <Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com>, <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
<davem@davemloft.net>, <kuba@kernel.org>,
<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wilc1000: Allow setting power_save before driver is initialized
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:20:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9272b86e-61ab-1c25-0efb-3cdd2c590db8@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be3c95c8310504222e88c602a937b7f05cc01286.camel@egauge.net>
On 23/12/21 22:38, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Thu, 2021-12-23 at 14:02 +0000, Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com wrote:
>> I verified with wpa_supplicant and it seems the power save mode is
>> working fine. Tested multiple times with wpa_supplicant running. I
>> didn't observe any issue in entering or exiting the power-save mode with
>> wpa_supplicant.
>>
>> Try to verify without wpa_supplicant in your setup to observe if we are
>> seeing this same results in that case.
> It doesn't help me if it works without wpa_supplicant. I need a
> reliable way to have power-savings mode in effect when using
> wpa_supplicant.
Okay. In my setup, I observed that PS mode works with and without
wpa_supplicant. Now tested by following your command sequence.
>> With wpa_supplicant, the current consumption is less when PS mode is
>> enabled but it would be more compared to without wpa_supplicant.
> That's not what I'm talking about though. The problem is that it seems
> to be rather erratic whether issuing the iw power_save command makes a
> difference in power-consumption.
>
> I fixed my setup so I can directly measure power consumed rather than
> just current (power factor matters). Again, this is for the entire
> device (not just WILC1000).
>
> What I find that when power-saving mode is working as expected, the
> device uses an average of 1.1W. When power-saving mode is not working,
> power consumption is about 1.4W, or about 300mW higher.
>
> I tried again *without* the patch applied and, as expected, the patch
> doesn't really affect this behavior.
>
> After playing with this for a while, I think I found two sequences that
> reliably reproduce the difference.
>
> First, on a freshly booted system and with wilc1000-spi autoloaded by
> the kernel, try this sequence (copy & paste the commands):
>
> /usr/sbin/wpa_supplicant -Bs -iwlan0 -c/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf
> sleep 10
> iw dev wlan0 set power_save on
>
> The above yields a power consumption of 1.4W reliably. The "sleep 10"
> doesn't matter here; the behavior is the same with or without it. I
> tried waiting up to 120 seconds with no difference.
I have tested by making the WILC as build-in module to insert driver
automatically at boot-up. I hope it should be fine. Because I have
already tested as loadable module earlier.
Below are the number observed
------------------------------ --------------------------
- before starting wpa_supplicant : ~16.3 mA
- wpa_supplicant started : ~40 mA
- PSM on : ~6 mA
The 'sleep 10' would have no impact in my setup because I have measured
the current consumption for wilc1000 chip.
I have shared the screenshot at https://postimg.cc/67S41dkb
> Second, on a freshly booted system and with wilc1000-spi autoloaded by
> the kernel, try this sequence (copy & paste the commands):
>
> /usr/sbin/wpa_supplicant -Bs -iwlan0 -c/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf
> sleep 10
> rmmod wilc1000-spi
> modprobe wilc1000-spi
> sleep 10
> iw dev wlan0 set power_save on
>
> The above yields a power consumption of 1.1W reliably.
>
> Can you reproduce this, or, if not, share the power consumption you see
> for the two cases?
Second case was verified earlier and also tested by toggle power_save
mode on/off many times and I observe the numbers are in same range for
both cases.
Regards,
Ajay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-24 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-12 1:18 David Mosberger-Tang
2021-12-12 21:20 ` David Mosberger-Tang
2021-12-15 13:01 ` Ajay.Kathat
2021-12-16 5:37 ` David Mosberger-Tang
[not found] ` <49a5456d-6a63-652e-d356-9678f6a9b266@microchip.com>
2021-12-16 15:30 ` David Mosberger-Tang
2021-12-23 14:02 ` Ajay.Kathat
2021-12-23 17:08 ` David Mosberger-Tang
2021-12-24 16:20 ` Ajay.Kathat [this message]
2021-12-24 17:38 ` David Mosberger-Tang
[not found] ` <f961481a-3f4c-5fd2-c46a-037d923fea4c@microchip.com>
2022-01-04 6:07 ` David Mosberger-Tang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9272b86e-61ab-1c25-0efb-3cdd2c590db8@microchip.com \
--to=ajay.kathat@microchip.com \
--cc=Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidm@egauge.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®