Wireless and RFKILL
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
Re: Wireless and RFKILL, this way integrators like myself
Quoted 5 lines · Clyde McPherson
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".
Quoted 2 lines
What are the chances of adding #ifdef's for
CONFIG_RFKILLon 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
Quoted 9 lines · Clyde McPherson
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_RFKILLon 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?
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.