Re: [Familiar] 0.8.4 udev rules - was: Re: v0.8.4-rc3 - wifi problem which doesn't exist underkernel 2.6.15-hh0

Hi Rene.
I haven't thought about that - I do agree that is is better to make is
"use at own risk" than to know that "familiar linux fired somebodies
card":).

Just one thing I found while trying to make my card working.
In /etc/pcmcia/hostap (or something like that - I don't remember the
exact path and file name) there is a list of cards handled by the
hostap module. As far I understood that list it also has distinction
of the 3.3 v and 5 v cards - there is a line there with something like
opts="ignore_cis_vcc=1". So I my guess is that we have the list
already so I it easly to convert it to a "safe config". With the udev
rule solution it is not the clearest/easiest solution but it may work.
I don't if that would be possible with the modutils.d way - I have not
been going too deep into that.

Sorry for generalizing but I don't have my ipaq anywhere near me....

Michal

On 8/12/06, Rene Wagner <rw-CN5wO63fgwogsBAKwltoeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
>
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 13:52 -0700, Joshua Layne wrote:
> > ACTION=="add", DEVICE=="hostap_cs", SYSFS{func_id}=="0x06", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe 
> hostap_cs ignore_cis_vcc=1"
> >
> > That is all my rule consists of and it works for the Netgear MA701
> >
> > We are trying to not enter every single card in the udev rules (as was
> > done for /etc/pcmcia/hostap_cs.conf in previous versions) - hopefully
> > the flexibility of udev will allow us a bit more abstraction.
> >
> > I would very much like to see this added to 0.8.4, but I have no control
> > over that - I think Rene or Erik would have to include it.
>
> The problem with this is that the VCC checking the driver does is a
> safety measure. Setting ignore_cis_vcc=1 may result in operating
> a 3.3V only card at 5V which will likely fry the card.
>
> I'm fine with documenting this as a "use at your own risk" workaround
> but I'm a bit reluctant to enable it by default. I'm also going to
> remove similiar entries from other configuration files unless someone
> comes up with a good explanation why those would be harmless.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work you've done on this and
> would love to make things work out of the box, but not at the risk
> of frying anyone's hardware.
>
> On a related note, I don't think a udev rule is the right place to
> set options passed to kernel modules. This should probably go in
> a file in /etc/modutils (or /etc/modprobe.d if the modprobe from
> module-init-tools doesn't parse /etc/modutils/*conf any more).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rene
>
> --
> Rene Wagner
> rw at handhelds dot org
> 4F33 7FD7 93B3 166B BADA  D6F8 71A1 FEA8 58B4 36D0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> H2200-port mailing list
> H2200-port-CN5wO63fgwogsBAKwltoeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/h2200-port