Return-path: Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.184]:49757 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763441AbYCSVBB (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:01:01 -0400 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 28so300571tif.23 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: (sfid-20080319_210208_269717_9C1D24C7) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:46:45 +0100 From: drago01 To: "Chatre, Reinette" Subject: Re: [ipw3945-devel] iwl3945 rfkill regression Cc: "Tomas Winkler" , "Dan Williams" , linux-wireless , "Zhu, Yi" , "Cahill, Ben M" , ipw3945-devel In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1ba2fa240801261411x7bb437c9s31aea593537afeba@mail.gmail.com> <47B29F63.6050605@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Please note that the driver loads/unloads the firmware during interface > up/down. That means that the host will not receive rfkill events while > the interface is down as there is no firmware to deal with these events. > > Reinette > OK that makes sense. So a solution would be to not unload the firmware on down when the hw rfkill is on. Is this a acceptable one or are they other (better solutions). I can't think of any. And userspace cannot do anything because bringing the device up and down again to look for the rfkill status would be racy.