Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:39784 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752037Ab0KISvs (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:51:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself From: Johannes Berg To: Clyde McPherson Cc: linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <4CD99096.5020105@verizon.net> References: <4CD99096.5020105@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:53:07 -0800 Message-ID: <1289328787.3660.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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