On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 17:39 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. Yup; NAME's better for this even though it's useless. Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
