| 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 |
Hi!
> > 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
thing.
Pavel
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Pavel Machek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: netdev munching messages again?, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Zhu Yi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |