Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:43572 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751972Ab0KITPM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:15:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:57:51 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Clyde McPherson Cc: linux-wireless Subject: Re: Wireless and RFKILL Message-ID: <20101109185750.GA2374@tuxdriver.com> References: <4CD99096.5020105@verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4CD99096.5020105@verizon.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.