On Saturday 06 June 2009 00:38:15 Larry Finger wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 05 June 2009 23:20:55 Larry Finger wrote:
> >> That is what the driver already does.
> >
> > No. If the device is down, then it _is_ down. There won't be an rfkill thing
> > trying to bring it up again although the interface is down.
>
> But in the current driver, turning the radio switch off only shuts
> down the radio. The rest of the interface is still up.
This is not what I'm talking about.
I was talking about bringing the device up just for the purpose of checking the bit.
> >>> We can't we just accept that the RF-kill status is unknown while the device is down?
> >> The problem is that while the interface is down the switch status
> >> cannot be interrogated. If you try, you get a fatal SSB error. Thus
> >> the only way to bring it back up is to flip the switch, then
> >> rmmod/insmod the driver. If you want hardware rfkill to be one-way,
> >> then take Johannes's patch. We would save a little power by calling
> >> b43_wireless_exit() if we brought it up to test the switch, and the
> >> switch was still off. That would leave everything off most of the time.
> >
> > Yeah well. We cannot read the rfkill status while the device is down. That is
> > a hardware limitation. I think we should _live_ with that limitation instead of
> > working around it by always keeping the device initialized.
> > Can't we teach the rfkill subsystem about an "unknown" state? Because that's what we're in.
>
> An "unknown" state would be OK, but I don't know how to get the state
> of the switch to the rfkill system.
>
> > Yeah. But wasting huge amounts of power to keep polling a bit that's not even used
> > most of the time is not really what I like.
>
>
> > +void b43_rfkill_poll(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
> > {
> > - struct b43_wldev *dev = data;
> > - struct b43_wl *wl = dev->wl;
> > + struct b43_wl *wl = hw_to_b43_wl(hw);
> > + struct b43_wldev *dev = wl->current_dev;
> > bool enabled;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
> > if (unlikely(b43_status(dev) < B43_STAT_INITIALIZED)) {
> > - mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
> > - return;
> > + if (b43_wireless_core_init(dev)) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > This is the part of the code which I really really really dislike.
> > Hell, just return a freaking error from b43_rfkill_poll(), if the interface
> > is down. If rfkill can't handle that, it should probably be taught to handle it.
> > Especially as there can be other errors as well, like memory allocation failures.
>
> I understand that this is the part that you do not like. I don't like
> it either, but unless we can read the switch-state bit, the interface
> will never come back up. I do not find rmmod/insmod a suitable
> recovery mechanism.
Huh? We cannot do a simple ifconfig wlan0 up anymore to bring the interface up?
Is that overridden by rfkill now?
--
Greetings, Michael.
--
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
