Re: [PATCH] rfkill: clarify usage of rfkill_force_state() andrfkill->get_state()

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 13:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> Now it must do something like this in pseudo-code:
> 
> 	1. if (the bit is disabled (i.e. SW rfkill is NOT ACTIVE)) {
> 		rfkill-SW-status = disabled;
> 	   }  else if (the bit is enabled (i.e. SW rfkill is ACTIVE)) {
> 		if (tx power off is NOT ACTIVE)
> 			rfkill-SW-status = enabled;
> 		else
> 			rfkill-SW-status = whatever the user asked
> 	   }
> 
> THEN, it should use rfkill-sw-status, along with the hw rfkill line status,
> to synthesize the state it must pass to rfkill_force_status().
> 
> ICK.  Of course, if the driver has another way to implement txpower off that
> does not clash with sw rfkill, the above is unneeded.

Why are we not handling soft-rfkill in mac80211 entirely?

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part