From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.116]:50010 "EHLO mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753494AbXITMyv (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:54:51 -0400 Message-ID: <46F26DAA.6070909@lwfinger.net> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:55:06 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Buesch CC: John Linville , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: Change loglevel of radio-enable message. References: <200709191858.38634.mb@bu3sch.de> <46F162AF.9050903@lwfinger.net> <200709191957.59255.mb@bu3sch.de> In-Reply-To: <200709191957.59255.mb@bu3sch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 19 September 2007 19:55:59 Larry Finger wrote: >> Michael Buesch wrote: >>> Also cleanup the code a bit and remove the inline. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch >>> @@ -2214,7 +2229,7 @@ static int b43_chip_init(struct b43_wlde >>> b43_radio_turn_on(dev); >>> dev->radio_hw_enable = b43_is_hw_radio_enabled(dev); >>> b43dbg(dev->wl, "Radio %s by hardware\n", <======================== >>> - (dev->radio_hw_enable == 0) ? "disabled" : "enabled"); >>> + dev->radio_hw_enable ? "enabled" : "disabled"); >> Shouldn't this one be b43info rather than b43dbg? > > No, I think it's really only interesting to see if it changed > in operation. > If it doesn't work, people will press their rfkill buttons > before even noticing this message on init. :) I have a suggestion to simplify the whole business of hardware radio control. Why don't we unconditionally set radio_hw_enable to one here and dispense with this message? That way, people without the rfkill switch will never see a message and those that do will only get messages if their switch is off, or if it is toggled. Larry