iwl4965 and rf_kill switch [was: Re: 2.6.24-rc7 experimental upload]
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:20:11 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> i announce an 2.6.24-rc7 upload for tomorrow morning.
Dear Maximilian,
I was just downloading from kernel.org when I read your announcement.
Thanks for sparing me a kernel compile :)
This 2.6.24-rc7 seems to work just fine but I have an issue with the
iwl4965 module. I'll describe my problem here, but if this is not the
appropriate place please excuse me and kick me in the right direction.
So, when I boot 2.6.24-rc7 on my intel-based laptop the wireless card
gets correctly recognized and the iwl4965 module is loaded. The wlan0
interface is created BUT the software rf_kill switch is ON, preventing
the card to work.
So I check:
vasquez:~# cat /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:03\:00.0/rf_kill
2
Ok, makes sense. Let's disable the switch:
vasquez:~# echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:03\:00.0/rf_kill
vasquez:~# cat /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:03\:00.0/rf_kill
2
Nothing happened! Let's try with brute force:
vasquez:~# rmmod iwl4965
vasquez:~# modprobe iwl4965
vasquez:~# cat /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:03\:00.0/rf_kill
0
Ha! Bingo! But:
vasquez:~# ifconfig wlan0
wlan0: error fetching interface information: Device not found
and /var/log/messages on modprobing iwl4965 says:
Jan 11 23:39:24 vasquez kernel: iwl4965: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link
4965AGN driver for Linux, 1.1.17ks
Jan 11 23:39:24 vasquez kernel: iwl4965: Copyright(c) 2003-2007 Intel
Corporation
Jan 11 23:39:24 vasquez kernel: ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:00.0[A] ->
GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 18
Jan 11 23:39:24 vasquez kernel: iwl4965: Detected Intel Wireless WiFi
Link 4965AGN
Jan 11 23:39:24 vasquez kernel: iwl4965: Radio disabled by HW RF Kill
switch
Any advice on how to make this work? Maybe a patch that forces the driver
to start with the killswitch OFF?
The iwlwifi bugzilla does not seem to help on the issue.
Thanks for any help you can give me, and for the great work!
--
Best Regards, Jack
Linux user #264449
Powered by Debian Sid AMD64
Reply to: