Re: [RFC] Wireless extensions rethink

[Vladimir Kondratiev <vkondra@mail.ru>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'd like this idea too. When patches will be ready, I am willing to convert my 
driver to use this interface, and I'll provide feedback.
Vladimir.

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 19:39, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I'll start refactoring my work towards that
> approach. Please bear with me for a couple of days and I'll post a draft
> patch for this.
>
> --- Gertjan.
>
> Feldman, Scott wrote:
> >>I was thinking along the same lines, however I was taking the
> >>ethtool interface as the starting point (using a single ioctl
> >>for all wireless operations). The private handlers would just
> >>have to be converted to plain ioctls handled by the driver itself.
> >>
> >>The attached patch can be used as a starting point for this.
> >>It is not complete (not by far), but it shows the basic structure.
> >>I've called the structure wlantool_ops, again using the
> >>example set by ethtool.
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >
> > What if we just use the ethtool ioctl that's already defined, and extend
> > ethtool with a wireless option:
> >
> > ethtool -w DEVNAME \
> > 	[ nwid N|off|on} ] \
> > 	[ freq x.xx ] \
> > 	[ mode ad-hoc|managed|master|repeater|... ] \
> > 	[ sens N ] \
> > 	[ ... ]
> >
> > Each one of the sub-options to -w would have it's own ETHTOOL_[G|S]W...
> > command as well as a type-safe ethtool_op.
> >
> > Running ethtool DEVNAME dumps ETHTOOL_GW... :
> >
> > Wireless settings for eth0:
> >         nwid: AB34
> >         freq: 2.422G
> >         mode: managed
> >         sens: -80
> >
> > Good/bad idea?
> >
> > -scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAzzBaqxdj7mhC6o0RAjveAJ94RhRFBBYxewaSYuELds8HJXkntACcCQDW
7SxvO7j/88hGxeAL3g8zQ8k=
=iYxo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----