Adding a few more people for wider review on this. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:53:48PM -0700, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Friday 26 March 2010 09:44:31 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > as well, we all agree that there should be userland controls. the > > > questions is just about the interface to use. > > > > ANI is specific to Atheros cards so debugfs would do it. If we want to > > have a more rigit API we could use a configfs entry for ath9k. > > debugfs definetly is the wrong place! users might compile the module with > debugging disabled (for performance reasons, e.g.). > > are you sure about configfs? as far as i read about it it's for the dynamic > creation of kernel objects, which is not what we are doing here. or did the > rules change in the mean time? I intended on writing a file system API for 802.11 management a while ago through configfs, the only reason why I put it aside is our focus was to get a netlink based API done. I think its reasonable to use it for configuration of specific devices parameters though given that we don't have a private API through nl80211. 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
