Hi,
I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of the
code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the depends in
wireless. What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for CONFIG_RFKILL on
the code segments that require RFKILL, this way integrators like myself
would not need to load and/or build the rfkill modules? This would also
save us memory and storage that is limited on a SBC system.
Thanks much
Tex
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:19:02PM -0500, Clyde McPherson wrote:
> I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
> applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of
> the code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
> wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the
> depends in wireless. What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for
> CONFIG_RFKILL on the code segments that require RFKILL, this way
> integrators like myself would not need to load and/or build the
> rfkill modules? This would also save us memory and storage that is
> limited on a SBC system.
Why can't you just turn-off CONFIG_RFKILL?
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:19 -0500, Clyde McPherson wrote:
> I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
> applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of the
> code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
> wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the depends in
> wireless.
Not true. The depends is "depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL".
> What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for CONFIG_RFKILL on
> the code segments that require RFKILL
Zero, because if you configure w/o RFKILL then the rfkill functions all
become stubs and there's nothing for you to worry about.
johannes