From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:35939 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755911AbZDXOKu (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:10:50 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so184459fga.17 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:10:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless Subject: Re: on radio_enabled References: <1240439975.30082.66.camel@johannes.local> <87tz4ed0w7.fsf@litku.valot.fi> <1240568807.18031.34.camel@johannes.local> From: Kalle Valo Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:10:47 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1240568807.18031.34.camel@johannes.local> (Johannes Berg's message of "Fri\, 24 Apr 2009 12\:26\:47 +0200") Message-ID: <874oweb0rc.fsf@litku.valot.fi> (sfid-20090424_161108_035120_C91CA4C7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg writes: > I wonder where the use case for faster scanning is Basically the situation where the device is not connected to any AP but is periodidally trying to find one, for example by scanning every five minutes. In that case every mW we can save in scanning improves use times. > but I guess the slow SPI bus really does make for a long delay in > initialising due to firmware upload. Exactly. > I have no trouble with implementing it this way, and userspace can > still set the interfaces down when it wishes to do that, while we can > save a lot of power when userspace doesn't do it that way. Yes. > Now, what happens with "iwconfig wlan0 txpower off"? I can't figure out > that one. Should it be completely equivalent to rfkill, regardless of > what rfkill ends up doing? In my opinion should be equivalent to rfkill. NB. I haven't properly thought about this and I know nothing about rfkill, fortunately :) -- Kalle Valo