| To: | jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:11:08 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | pavel@xxxxxx, vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, abonilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ipw2100-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <42A8AE2A.4080104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050609104205.GD3169@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050609.125324.88476545.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42A8AE2A.4080104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: James Ketrenos <jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:01:30 -0500 > The ipw2100 originally postponed doing any initialization until open was > called. The problem at that time was that distributions were crafted to > rely on link detection (I believe via ethtoolop's get_link) before they > would bring the interface up. Yes, I see, and that does work for most ethernet devices. I noticed that Debian's 3.1 installer used this to determine which ethernet device it should use as the default in it's network device dialogue. One idea, returning true for get_link when the device is down, may not be a bad idea for the wireless case. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: NAPI packet weighting patch, Jesse Brandeburg |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Arjan van de Ven |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |