[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ipw2100: firmware problem

To: Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ipw2100: firmware problem
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:56:19 +0200
Cc: James Ketrenos <jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Netdev list <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, kernel list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "James P. Ketrenos" <ipw2100-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1118287990.10234.114.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050608142310.GA2339@xxxxxxxxxx> <42A723D3.3060001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050608212707.GA2535@xxxxxxxxxx> <42A76719.2060700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050608223437.GB2614@xxxxxxxxxx> <1118287990.10234.114.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

> > Actually it would still transmit when user did not want it to. I
> > believe that staying "quiet" is right thing, long-term. And it could
> > solve firmware-loading problems, short-term...
> If ipw2100 is built into kernel, you can disable it by kernel parameter
> ipw2100.disable=1. Then you can enable it with:
> $ echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/ipw2100/*/rf_kill
> > How long does association with AP take? Anyway it should be easy to
> > tell driver to associate ASAP, just after the insmod...
> Are you suggesting by default it is disabled for built into kernel but
> enabled as a module?

I'm suggesting that by default it is disabled (in kernel or as a
module) and its automatically enabled during ifconfig up.

That way we can drop the kernel parameter and always do the right


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>