On Tuesday 30 June 2009, reinette chatre wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] iwlagn: do not send key clear commands when rfkill > enabled > > Do all key clearing except sending sommands to device when rfkill > enabled. When rfkill enabled the interface is brought down and will > be brought back up correctly after rfkill is enabled again. > > Same change is not needed for iwl3945 as it ignores return code when > sending key clearing command to device. With this patch things look a lot cleaner: [enable hardware rf kill switch] iwlagn 0000:10:00.0: RF_KILL bit toggled to disable radio. wlan0: deauthenticating by local choice (reason=3) usb 3-1: USB disconnect, address 2 [disable hardware rf kill switch] iwlagn 0000:10:00.0: RF_KILL bit toggled to enable radio. usb 3-1: new full speed USB device using uhci_hcd and address 3 usb 3-1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice [ifdown wlan0] Registered led device: iwl-phy0::radio Registered led device: iwl-phy0::assoc Registered led device: iwl-phy0::RX Registered led device: iwl-phy0::TX ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): wlan0: link is not ready [ifup wlan0] Registered led device: iwl-phy0::radio Registered led device: iwl-phy0::assoc Registered led device: iwl-phy0::RX Registered led device: iwl-phy0::TX ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): wlan0: link is not ready wlan0: authenticate with AP 00:14:c1:38:e5:15 wlan0: authenticated wlan0: associate with AP 00:14:c1:38:e5:15 wlan0: RX AssocResp from 00:14:c1:38:e5:15 (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=1) wlan0: associated ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): wlan0: link becomes ready wlan0: no IPv6 routers present One thing I do not quite get is why both ifdown and ifup result in leds getting registered. It does not happen when I do a "normal" ifdown (when the wireless interface is up and rfkill is not enabled). I could understand the leds being registered immediately after I disable the rf kill switch, but don't understand why it gets postponed until I do ifdown. That makes it seem as if the change in RF_KILL only gets processed halfway through with the registering of leds left dangling. > Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> Reported-by: Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c > @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ static void iwl_irq_tasklet_legacy(struct iwl_priv > *priv) CSR_GP_CNTRL_REG_FLAG_HW_RF_KILL_SW)) > hw_rf_kill = 1; > > - IWL_DEBUG_RF_KILL(priv, "RF_KILL bit toggled to %s.\n", > + IWL_WARN(priv, "RF_KILL bit toggled to %s.\n", > hw_rf_kill ? "disable radio" : "enable radio"); > > priv->isr_stats.rfkill++; > @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static void iwl_irq_tasklet(struct iwl_priv > *priv) CSR_GP_CNTRL_REG_FLAG_HW_RF_KILL_SW)) > hw_rf_kill = 1; > > - IWL_DEBUG_RF_KILL(priv, "RF_KILL bit toggled to %s.\n", > + IWL_WARN(priv, "RF_KILL bit toggled to %s.\n", > hw_rf_kill ? "disable radio" : "enable radio"); If these two messages get promoted to regular user messages, maybe they could be made a bit less technical? I doubt "RF_KILL bit toggled" is going to mean all that much to most users. Thanks, FJP -- 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
