Re: [ipw3945-devel] iwl3945 rfkill regression

[drago01 <drago01@gmail.com>]

Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2008 9:00 PM, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Jan 22, 2008 9:24 PM, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Jan 22, 2008 9:21 PM, Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@intel.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: drago01 [mailto:drago01@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:12 PM
>>>>> To: Winkler, Tomas
>>>>>           
>>>>> Cc: ipw3945-devel; Cahill, Ben M; Zhu, Yi; linux-wireless
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ipw3945-devel] iwl3945 rfkill regression
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2008 9:07 PM, Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
>>>>>           
>>>> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>>> I believe it's delaying uCode load to mac_start - still need to be
>>>>>> polished.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ok, thx for the quick reply.
>>>>> If you have any potential fixes I would be happy to test them ;)
>>>>>           
>>>> Can you get me the sequence it is happening? RF kill switch is off
>>>> before you power up the laptop or after, during association or in
>>>> unassociated state..etc
>>>> Thanks
>>>>         
>>> I boot with rf kill off = device on
>>> acciotate using NM
>>> kill the card by pressing the rfkill (ie. setting it to on)
>>> card is dead (like described in my first mail), until I relaod the module
>>> the rfkill switch  does not have any effect at this time.
>>>
>>>       
>> OK, I investigated a bit and it seems to be the "disable interrupt
>> when device goes down" is the problem.
>> In my case NetworkManager detected the rfkill and brought the device
>> down, which caused the interrupt to be disabled. Now after pressing
>> the rfkill again nothing happend. But if I bring the device back up
>> the interrupt is enabled again and rfkill and the card is back to
>> live.
>> So in short disabling the interrupt in mac_stop breaks the hw rfkill
>> while the interface is down.
>>
>>     
>
> Thanks for investigating this, still didn't have to time to dig into it.
>
>   
ping?