Am Montag, 1. Dezember 2008 schrieb Tomas Winkler:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Helmut Schaa
> <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c
> > index b935e9d..e2f160b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c
> > @@ -1504,8 +1504,11 @@ static void iwl_irq_tasklet(struct iwl_priv *priv)
> > * the driver as well won't allow loading if RFKILL is set
> > * therefore no need to restart the driver from this handler
> > */
> > - if (!hw_rf_kill && !test_bit(STATUS_ALIVE, &priv->status))
> > + if (!hw_rf_kill && !test_bit(STATUS_ALIVE, &priv->status)) {
> > clear_bit(STATUS_RF_KILL_HW, &priv->status);
> > + if (priv->is_open)
> > + queue_work(priv->workqueue, &priv->restart);
> > + }
> >
> > handled |= CSR_INT_BIT_RF_KILL;
> > }
>
> This is strange, this exact code is part of patch
>
> """
> Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun Jun 22 11:18:52 2008 +0300
> iwlwifi: clean up HW RF-kill state machine and restarts
> This patch cleans up HW RF-kill state machine.
> """
> The two other hunks of this patch are in the current code, this one is
> not, I've probably messed up something on they way. I will track this
> down.
Thanks, should I respin the above patch?
> > 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.
Would it be possible to poll CSR_GP_CNTRL for that information on iwl3945?
> There were few threads about this subject.
Searching for these now ...
> In 4965 and 5000 this will work
Would you agree on that behavior?
Any objections I did not think of yet?
Thanks,
Helmut
--
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
