Gerhard
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Russell Kroll wrote:
> > Probably a better choice would be for the kernel to assume that it
> > can, and report an error if the hardware says otherwise, at least as
> > far as that is possible...
>
> That assumes that the radio card is able to indicate that a frequency is
> unattainable. Unfortunately, when it comes to tuning, these things are
> pretty stupid and don't report much back. The aztech, aimslab, and cadet
> radio cards all suck down tuning bits but only the cadet will let you read
> them back.
>
> For most of these things, a human has to be in the loop doing experiments
> to figure out exactly what the limits are. There are also modifications
> possible to these cards that will alter the range, so a fixed value isn't
> always good either.
>
> I imagine that allowing "freqlow" and "freqhigh" as options for
> insmod/modprobe would allow users in various locations to try different
> frequencies to see what happens. This is obviously out of the question
> right now, so I will pursue it when 2.3 development starts. It keeps the
> idea of "let clued people change values" alive, which is always a good
> thing.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-- gmack@imag.netAs a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/