On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 11:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:16 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Instead of testing for wireless/, best thing would probably be to call > > > SIOCGIWRANGE on the device and if it returns EOPNOTSUP then it's not > > > wireless. Some drivers may have to load firmware to figure out > > > supported rates and encryption capabilities, but to be honest, NM does > > > this to detect wireless devices and I haven't run into any issues in 4 > > > years using it. If there are issues with drivers, then we need to fix > > > the driver too. > > > > I was about to propose calling SIOCGIWNAME since that is what > > wireless-tools do and that linux/wireless.h indicates. > > Hmm; NAME is pretty useless. That's fine to do, I guess WEXT requires > that NAME return _something_ at least. NAME should never ever be used > for anything more, but since wireless-tools appears to do this that's > fine. Yes, I realise it is completely useless, but wext seems to require that it be implemented. RANGE would work as well but typically has much more complexity in the kernel. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
