From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:43127 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751602AbYJaTqE (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:46:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:04 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Dan Williams Cc: Anna Neal , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC] libertas: iwpriv commands to configure fine grained wake-on-(w)lan Message-ID: <20081031193504.GF4310@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20081031_204611_205737_1CB8278A) References: <48fe2917.131e640a.7efb.7d0b@mx.google.com> <1224620028.15561.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1224620028.15561.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:13:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:49 -0700, Anna Neal wrote: > > View README for new API. > > > > This patch implements the userspace interface for fine-grained configuration of > > wake-on-(w)lan. We are aware that iwpriv's are discouraged, but this is a > > vendor-specific feature that's currently being used in the OLPC project. > > > > We are aware that all iwprivs were removed from this driver. These used the old > > API for iwprivs. We've implemented this iwpriv as a private handler which relies > > on wireless extensions to do bounds checking and copying to/from user memory. > > Specific suggestions on how to make this more palatable for upstream inclusion > > are welcome. If iwprivs are completely unacceptable then this can serve as a > > public reference for interfacing with these features. > > IMHO we should be adding the functionality where's it's needed, which is > that ethtool, which doesn't have a verbose enough syntax for it's WOL > support. If ethtool's existing WOL got fixed up to support these > use-cases, then we wouldn't need iwpriv commands, we wouldn't have > duplicate functionality running around, and everyone gets a pony. Lets > kick off that discussion... > > Jeff: could something like this syntax be added to ethtool, or maybe > discreet commands instead of one? Thoughts? Did anything come out of this discussion? I'd prefer not to add new iwpriv stuff... John -- John W. Linville Linux should be at the core linville@tuxdriver.com of your literate lifestyle.