On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:42 PM, John W. Linville > <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:20:35PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> > Here's my suggestion how to provide firmware and hardware version to >>> > user space. First I was thinking adding a new nl80211 command and >>> > it looked so ugly that I decided include the versions in struct wiphy >>> > instead. >>> > >>> > Please comment. >>> >>> What was the conclusion on ethtool stuff again? I forgot. >> >> IIRC, I suggested that the cfg80211 driver API (or just the wiphy >> data structure) could be extended for appropriate bits like this, >> then cfg80211 could catch ethtool operations in a way similar to how >> it catches wireless extensions now. > > Oh, then I misunderstood our discussion at the summit, my > understanding was that we will use nl80211 anyway. Sorry about that. > > But we want to export two strings to user space (at least for now), is > it really worth the effort to add ethtool support for such a minor > feature? Also I have understood that ethtool is implemented only for > ethernet drivers, I don't feel comfortable that we use ethernet driver > interfaces with 802.11 device drivers. They are so much different that > there isn't that much common functionality. That's why I prefer > nl80211 over ethtool. > > What do people think? So for Wake-on-Wireless I ran into the same, ethtool just did not offer the same wake up events needed for wireless. I could have technically used ethtool and expanded it to support wireless but it just seemed dirty. I agree that using ethtool seems overkill compared to the patches you posted. Luis -- 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
