Am Dienstag, 6. Januar 2009 schrieb Dan Williams: > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 15:56 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 17. Dezember 2008 schrieb Dan Williams: > > > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 15:29 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:10:11PM -0800, mohamed salim abbas wrote: > > > > > 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? Will do that soon. 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
