Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:6346 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbYLAQRM (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:17:12 -0500 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so964589ywe.1 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:17:10 -0800 (PST) To: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: iwlwifi - rfkill only works if the interface is up Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:16:41 +0100 Cc: Helmut Schaa , Tomas Winkler , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhu@intel.com References: <200812011311.17346.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <200812011634.37644.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <1228147151.31158.142.camel@violet.holtmann.net> In-Reply-To: <1228147151.31158.142.camel@violet.holtmann.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200812011716.43486.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> (sfid-20081201_171715_090645_F647A680) From: Helmut Schaa Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Montag, 1. Dezember 2008 schrieb Marcel Holtmann: > Hi Helmut, > > > > > > Nevertheless, I'm wondering if the current behaviour (even with the patch above) > > > > > makes much sense. I mean, the user space cannot rely on the rfkill state > > > > > unless an appropriate interface is up. As the device is able to report the > > > > > killswitch state without firmware being loaded the following approach could > > > > > be feasible: > > > > > - iwl_pci_probe enables the device and enables the interrupts > > > > > - iwl_mac_start just loads the firmware > > > > > - iwl_mac_stop just releases the firmware but leaves the interrupts enabled > > > > > > > > In 3495 rfkill interrupt is not available and rfkill state is > > > > delivered only when firmware is loaded, therefore this is not > > > > possible to bring device down and also expect rfill switch event. > > > > There were few threads about this subject. > > > > In 4965 and 5000 this will work > > > > > > do we unregister the rfkill switch when bringing the adapter down. > > > > No. > > > > > If not, then we might should do that. I don't see a point in exposing a > > > rfkill switch if we can't do anything with it. > > > > Either that, or make the rfkill usable even when the interface is down. > > if the hardware/firmware doesn't allow us to do so, we have no real > option. Ah, you're talking about 3945. Missed that. Helmut