From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262473AbVFIVQk (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:16:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262474AbVFIVQk (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:16:40 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58054 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262473AbVFIVQ2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:16:28 -0400 Subject: Re: ipw2100: firmware problem From: Arjan van de Ven To: James Ketrenos Cc: "David S. Miller" , pavel@ucw.cz, vda@ilport.com.ua, abonilla@linuxwireless.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ipw2100-admin@linux.intel.com In-Reply-To: <42A8AE2A.4080104@linux.intel.com> References: <200506090909.55889.vda@ilport.com.ua> <20050608.231657.59660080.davem@davemloft.net> <20050609104205.GD3169@elf.ucw.cz> <20050609.125324.88476545.davem@davemloft.net> <42A8AE2A.4080104@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:15:54 +0200 Message-Id: <1118351754.5508.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:01 -0500, James Ketrenos wrote: > I don't know if all the distributions have moved away from this model. > If they have and the devices are brought up regardless of link, then > going back to delaying radio initialization until the open() is called > is workable. wouldn't you want that anyway for power saving reasons?