From: Luis R. Rodriguez on
Adding a few more people for wider review on this.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:53:48PM -0700, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> On Friday 26 March 2010 09:44:31 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > as well, we all agree that there should be userland controls. the
> > > questions is just about the interface to use.
> >
> > ANI is specific to Atheros cards so debugfs would do it. If we want to
> > have a more rigit API we could use a configfs entry for ath9k.
> debugfs definetly is the wrong place! users might compile the module with
> debugging disabled (for performance reasons, e.g.).
> are you sure about configfs? as far as i read about it it's for the dynamic
> creation of kernel objects, which is not what we are doing here. or did the
> rules change in the mean time?

I intended on writing a file system API for 802.11 management a while
ago through configfs, the only reason why I put it aside is our focus
was to get a netlink based API done. I think its reasonable to use
it for configuration of specific devices parameters though given that
we don't have a private API through nl80211.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at