* Wireless and RFKILL
@ 2010-11-09 18:19 Clyde McPherson
2010-11-09 18:53 ` Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself Johannes Berg
2010-11-09 18:57 ` Wireless and RFKILL John W. Linville
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Clyde McPherson @ 2010-11-09 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-wireless
Hi,
I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of the
code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the depends in
wireless. What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for CONFIG_RFKILL on
the code segments that require RFKILL, this way integrators like myself
would not need to load and/or build the rfkill modules? This would also
save us memory and storage that is limited on a SBC system.
Thanks much
Tex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself
2010-11-09 18:19 Wireless and RFKILL Clyde McPherson
@ 2010-11-09 18:53 ` Johannes Berg
2010-11-09 18:57 ` Wireless and RFKILL John W. Linville
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2010-11-09 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clyde McPherson; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:19 -0500, Clyde McPherson wrote:
> I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
> applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of the
> code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
> wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the depends in
> wireless.
Not true. The depends is "depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL".
> What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for CONFIG_RFKILL on
> the code segments that require RFKILL
Zero, because if you configure w/o RFKILL then the rfkill functions all
become stubs and there's nothing for you to worry about.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireless and RFKILL
2010-11-09 18:19 Wireless and RFKILL Clyde McPherson
2010-11-09 18:53 ` Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself Johannes Berg
@ 2010-11-09 18:57 ` John W. Linville
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: John W. Linville @ 2010-11-09 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clyde McPherson; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:19:02PM -0500, Clyde McPherson wrote:
> I build and use the compat-wireless source for use with SBC
> applications, and I have a question about the wireless portion of
> the code. Our SBCs do not have RFKILL capabilities, and since we use
> wireless we are forced to include it in our kernel due to the
> depends in wireless. What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for
> CONFIG_RFKILL on the code segments that require RFKILL, this way
> integrators like myself would not need to load and/or build the
> rfkill modules? This would also save us memory and storage that is
> limited on a SBC system.
Why can't you just turn-off CONFIG_RFKILL?
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-09 19:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-11-09 18:19 Wireless and RFKILL Clyde McPherson
2010-11-09 18:53 ` Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself Johannes Berg
2010-11-09 18:57 ` Wireless and RFKILL John W. Linville
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).