On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 02 January 2009 20:06:08 Kalle Valo wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Stefanik Gábor <netrolller.3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Probably a NOBTCOEX modparam might be a good idea - when implementing >> > BT coexistence in b43, a lot of non-BT-aware cards failed to work >> > because the BT GPIO line was connected to the TX preamplifier, >> > breaking all TX. >> >> It would be nice to have a common interface for this, for example >> through nl80211. Lots of drivers have BT coexistence support. But this >> is just an idea. > > Well, why? If btcoex works correctly (= is not buggy), the user does not > notice it at all. I see no reason to turn it off. Except if it's buggy. Working around buggy implementations was the primary reason why I suggested this. > But then we should simply fix it or always disable it at compiletime, if > it's not possible to fix. It would just make it easier for the users if the drivers would have a unified interface for this. Having a different modparam for each driver is ugly. But this just an idea, let's not waste too much time on this. Someone (not me) will send a patch if she feels this is a good idea. Most probably no one will. Kalle -- 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
