On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 04:10 -0800, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Currently iwlagn is not able to report hw-killswitch events while the
> interface is down. This has implications on user space tools (like
> NetworkManager) relying on rfkill notifications to bring the interface
> up once the wireless gets enabled through a hw killswitch.
>
> Thus, enable the device already in iwl_pci_probe instead of iwl_up
> and enable interrups while the interface is down in order to get
> notified about killswitch state changes. The firmware loading is still
> done in iwl_up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
<...>
> + if (!test_bit(STATUS_ALIVE, &priv->status)) {
Is this test necessary? If the intention is to get rfkill state updates
when interface is down (and ucode is thus not loaded, and STATUS_ALIVE
thus not set) then this test is not necessary.
> + if (hw_rf_kill)
> + set_bit(STATUS_RF_KILL_HW, &priv->status);
> + else
> + clear_bit(STATUS_RF_KILL_HW, &priv->status);
> + queue_work(priv->workqueue, &priv->rf_kill);
> }
>
> handled |= CSR_INT_BIT_RF_KILL;
> @@ -2158,7 +2161,8 @@ static void iwl_bg_rf_kill(struct work_struct *work)
> IWL_DEBUG(IWL_DL_RF_KILL,
> "HW and/or SW RF Kill no longer active, restarting "
> "device\n");
> - if (!test_bit(STATUS_EXIT_PENDING, &priv->status))
> + if (!test_bit(STATUS_EXIT_PENDING, &priv->status) &&
> + test_bit(STATUS_ALIVE, &priv->status))
This ties in with the question above. Above the work is scheduled when
STATUS_ALIVE is not set ... having this test here encourages me to think
that the above test for STATUS_ALIVE is not necessary.
The rest of the patch looks good.
Thank you very much
Reinette
--
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
