To: Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi - rfkill only works if the interface is up
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:34:36 +0100
Cc: Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com>,
	Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhu@intel.com
References: <200812011311.17346.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> <1ba2fa240812010508hcb29699m8bd8b3b0ba8574cd@mail.gmail.com> <1228145453.31158.140.camel@violet.holtmann.net>
In-Reply-To: <1228145453.31158.140.camel@violet.holtmann.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <200812011634.37644.helmut.schaa@gmail.com> (sfid-20081201_164200_740331_1DE236B0)
From: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Am Montag, 1. Dezember 2008 schrieb Marcel Holtmann:
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> > > 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.

Helmut