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

[Ivo van Doorn]

On Thursday 18 September 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?

Ideal situation would indeed be that mac80211 registers a rfkill structure
and listens to rfkill events. This would help drivers by only needing to
register a rfkill structure for state-change events without any need for
listeners.

I was considering such a patch some time ago, but needed to figure out
how to work with the state-override capabilities (HW_BLOCK and SOFT_BLOCK)
and didn't work on it any further since.

Ivo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/