From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:18763 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751087AbXLMAba (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:31:30 -0500 Subject: Re: mac80211 ethtool support From: Pavel Roskin To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Johannes Berg , Michael Buesch , Zhu Yi , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240712121523h59d919f8k42fe54b992618432@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197361048.3170.381.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <200712111350.25522.mb@bu3sch.de> <1197421988.3170.405.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <200712121148.48716.mb@bu3sch.de> <1197481520.6558.140.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240712121523h59d919f8k42fe54b992618432@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:31:28 -0500 Message-Id: <1197505888.13188.9.camel@dv> (sfid-20071213_003135_139409_D4439CB3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 01:23 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > NACK. Which virtual interface should get this? wmaster sounds like the > > "obvious" candidate but we want to get rid of it ASAP. And the others > > ones are pretty wrong because you can, technically, have a wiphy without > > any virtual interfaces on it. > > > Just a thought. What if all virtual interfaces will quasi implements > it. It doesn't matter if all the interfaces answers the same. I think The True Linux Way (c) would be to have EEPROM support for devices (those that live in /sys/device) without tying it to network interfaces or cfg80211. See __ATTR in include/linux/device.h, although I'm not sure if attributes are suitable for EEPROM as is. Maybe EEPROM should even be a separate class of devices connected to other devices. Of course, the topic would be better suited for LKML. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin