-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'd like this idea too. When patches will be ready, I am willing to convert my
driver to use this interface, and I'll provide feedback.
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 19:39, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea. I'll start refactoring my work towards that
> approach. Please bear with me for a couple of days and I'll post a draft
> patch for this.
> --- Gertjan.
> Feldman, Scott wrote:
> >>I was thinking along the same lines, however I was taking the
> >>ethtool interface as the starting point (using a single ioctl
> >>for all wireless operations). The private handlers would just
> >>have to be converted to plain ioctls handled by the driver itself.
> >>The attached patch can be used as a starting point for this.
> >>It is not complete (not by far), but it shows the basic structure.
> >>I've called the structure wlantool_ops, again using the
> >>example set by ethtool.
> > What if we just use the ethtool ioctl that's already defined, and extend
> > ethtool with a wireless option:
> > ethtool -w DEVNAME \
> > [ nwid N|off|on} ] \
> > [ freq x.xx ] \
> > [ mode ad-hoc|managed|master|repeater|... ] \
> > [ sens N ] \
> > [ ... ]
> > Each one of the sub-options to -w would have it's own ETHTOOL_[G|S]W...
> > command as well as a type-safe ethtool_op.
> > Running ethtool DEVNAME dumps ETHTOOL_GW... :
> > Wireless settings for eth0:
> > nwid: AB34
> > freq: 2.422G
> > mode: managed
> > sens: -80
> > Good/bad idea?
> > -scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----