On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 17:41 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > the interrupt moved from pci_probe to mac_start for power saving. once > > > > > > the interface is up the driver will read some register to know rfkill > > > > > > status, if the interface in down the driver don't care to keep track > > > > > > of rfkill switch. I wonder what the purpose of changing this behavior? > > > > > > > > > > I think it still isn't settled in everyone's minds whether rfkill > > > > > only matters if the device is "up" or if it is something that > > > > > e.g. NetworkManager might want to monitor as a clue to bring the > > > > > device up or down in response to rfkill changes. > > > > > > > > The question is: does NetworkManager just always keep the device 'up' > > > > irregardless of whether it's supposed to be associated with anything > > > > just so we can get rfkill events? > > > > > > Another question is: is it worth to keep the interface up (and thus the > > > firmware loaded) even if the transceiver is killed by a hardware switch? > > > Wouldn't that consume even more power than just listening to rfkill > > > interrupts (or polling the killswitch state in case of 3945) with no > > > firmware loaded. > > > > > > > I guess I'll treat rfkill the same as ethernet carrier. If we cannot > > > > rely on rfkill notifications when the device is down (we already can't, > > > > since iwl3945 simply can't do it) > > > > > > I've just checked the 3945 and it is indeed possible to poll the killswitch > > > state even if the firmware is not loaded. Hence 3945 could also expose > > > the killswitch state while the interface is down (of course the driver would > > > have to poll for that information). > > > > Even polling the state once every 2 - 4 seconds would be perfectly > > acceptable latency for me. It doesn't have to be instantaneous, so we > > can certainly trade off latency for fewer wakeups. Care to propose a > > patch? it'll make a lot of people happy :) > > if we can't get the rfkill state change via interrupt, then the kernel > driver has to poll for it (in the no-firmware cases). Or we have to > remove the rfkill support completely. Everything else is just not > acceptable. It is _not_ the responsibility of the userspace to make this > work with quirks. Right; I meant polling in *iwl3945* every 2 - 4 seconds or so, not from userspace. Userspace should still listen for the rfkill uevents (not that HAL does yet, but...) 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
