On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 23:26 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:13 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:46:47 -0400, "Dan Williams" <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > > a) hard switches that kill the radio and notify the driver
> > > >
> > > > rfkill class material, yes.
> > > >
> > > > > b) hard switches that notify the driver but do not directly kill the
> > > > > radio
> > > >
> > > > These are input devices, and not directly related to the rfkill class
> > > > (but related to the rfkill subsystem).
> > >
> > > So in your mind, these drivers would re-emit state changes of their
> > > rfkill switches back into the kernel input layer, correct?
> >
> > Yes. And the funny thing is, they are supposed not to ACT by themselves
> > at all, they are to wait for someone to tell them to through the rfkill class.
> >
> > (NOTE: this applies only to scenario (b) above. It is NOT valid for other
> > scenarios like (a) or (c) or any other).
> >
> >
> > To be more clear:
> >
> > MODULE FOO (driver for the foo wireless device).
> > * Ties to the input layer, and reports pressure of the "hard switch that notify
> > the driver (MODULE FOO) but do not directly kill the radio (device foo)" using
> > the proper input event.
> >
> > It does NOTHING further with the information that the button/switch was pressed.
> > Really. It just generates the input event and sends it.
> >
> > * Uses the rfkill class connected to the device foo in the device tree to receive
> > commands to toggle the real device rfkill state.
> >
> > If some input event is indeed supposed to cause the device state to change, the
> > driver gets called back through the rfkill class toggle_radio() hook.
> >
> > So, the button press would go through the input layer to SOMETHING ELSE (likely
> > to rfkill-input), which would take the **policy** decision of what to do with
> > that event, and then cause the appropriate rfkill class instances to change their
> > state.
> >
> > So, MODULE FOO would get a hook call (toggle_radio) through the rfkill class, in
> > order to do something about the input event MODULE FOO itself generated.
> >
> > Or it might not get that hook call, if the local admin wanted something different
> > to happen.
> >
> > > > > c) hard switches that disconnect the device from its bus entirely (most
> > > > > BT rfkill)
> > > >
> > > > These are also rfkill class material.
> > > >
> > > > > d) hard switches that notify BIOS only (not the driver) and rely on
> > > > > special laptop drivers (hp-wmi, toshiba-laptop, etc) to notify the
> > > > > system
> > > >
> > > > If they just notify the BIOS, they are input devices. If they cause the
> > > > BIOS to mess with the transmitters, they are rfkill class material.
> > >
> > > Obviously here, the laptop specific driver would re-emit the state
> > > change into the the kernel input layer since it is handled by a
> > > completely separate driver than the radio itself is handled by?
> >
> > Correct. The platform driver might actually also register notifier callbacks
> > on the rfkill subsystem, and, for example, automatically promote all b43
> > rfkill status changes into input events if this is the correct thing to
> > do for THAT specific platform (it is NOT the correct thing to do by
> > default, so b43 can't do it itself).
> >
> > > > > e) keyboard "soft" switches that are simply input layer buttons (like Fn
> > > > > +F5 on thinkpads) and don't toggle
> > > >
> > > > These are input devices in almost all cases. But since you brought up
> > > > thinkpads, I better warn you that the Fn+F5 in a ThinkPad, depending on
> > > > thinkpad BIOS revision and ACPI HKEY mask state, *is* active and will
> > > > mess with the transmitters directly (and thus it is not an input
> > > > device). thinkpad-acpi forces it to "just an input device" state by
> > > > default to keep things sane.
> > > >
> > > > > Besides that, we can rfkill radios in software through commands like
> > > > > "iwconfig wlan0 txpower off".
> > > >
> > > > Yeah. This could be also rfkill material, if you want to have rfkill as
> > > > another *way* to interact with the same functionality. It could cause
> > > > some minor issues (like which power do I set the transmitter to, if it
> > > > is turned off by txpower off, but someone undos that through rfkill?)
> > > > but it would work.
> > >
> > > I want _one_ interface to get the radio block state (either blocked or
> > > unblocked) for any device that has a radio, be it WiFi, WiMAX, BT, WWAN,
> > > UWB, etc.
> >
> > rfkill is supposed to be it, yes.
> >
> > > I also want _one_ interface to determine how many rfkill switches the
> > > system has, and what their state is (either blocking radios or not
> > > blocking radios). This is what the current rfkill system seems to
> > > provide.
> >
> > It provides that information PARTIALLY. Currently, you can enumerate
> > all rfkill interfaces through sysfs, and you can interact with each
> > one separately. However, you cannot interact with the internal type-
> > specific global switches (which are NOT rfkill class) inside
> > rfkill-input.
> >
> > I haven't solved that problem to my satisfaction yet, so the only patch
> > I have for it has not seen the light of the net. It is too ugly to live
> > IMHO.
> >
> > So, I'd say the individual rfkill class sysfs interface is nearly complete
> > (we need to add the third state or do something else to tell you when
> > a radio is blocked and cannot be unblocked).
> >
> > But the rfkill subsystem interface (deals with rfkill-input) to userspace
> > is NOT feature-complete yet. This really, really shouldn't bother NM,
> > it is HAL-layer level stuff.
>
> It bothers NM because NM uses HAL for rfkill information, and HAL
> doesn't yet handle the difference between hardkill and softkill. That's
> exactly what I'm trying to fix here.
>
> > > I don't want to have to use SIOCGIWTXPOW for wifi, something else for
> > > BT, something else for WWAN, something else for WiMAX, just to figure
> > > out whether a radio is blocked or unblocked. That's just wrong but
> > > something that we can eventually fix.
> >
> > Well, the problem is that SIOCGIWTXPOW is NOT a direct equivalent to rfkill,
> > rfkill has no concept of attenuation (or amplification, for that matter).
>
> Yeah, but that's not really relevant here. All we need is "radio
> blocked" or "radio unblocked" as a property on the transmitter device.
> We don't are about the signal power, we just care about whether the
> radio is blocked or unblocked.
>
> > It is up for the wireless people to decide if their SIOCGIWTXPOW controls
> > are the same exposed by rfkill or not, and what to do when reenabling from
> > a txpower off (probably you will have to recall the last non-off txpower
> > and use that). The rfkill subsystem really doesn't care, as long as you
> > don't do it by adding more than one rfkill class to the same device.
> >
> > > So, it seems I was confused about the scope of the current rfkill
> > > system. While it probably should be "rfkill_switch" I'm not sure we can
> > > change that now. While it would be nice to have a single interface to
> > > query radio power state, that can be a future improvement.
> >
> > I think it is a better idea to fix what we have, first. Let it settle
> > down, and then take the full view and check if you need to enhance it,
> > replace it, or design something else that goes along with it. I'd bet on
> > the third option, but it is a bit early to tell.
> >
> > > > > Only (a), (b), (c), and sometimes (d) actually kill the radio and block
> > > > > changes by the user. Otherwise, it's up to userspace to kill the radios
> > > > > when events come in.
> > > >
> > > > If it doesn't kill the radio, it is not rfkill class material. At most,
> > > > it could be an input device that issues events related to rfkill.
> > >
> > > Right, I misunderstood the original scope of the kernel rfkill stuff. I
> > > thought it covered everything except case E (pure input-layer only
> > > buttons).
> >
> > It sort of does, in the sense that rfkill (not the rfkill class!) defines
> > how the input layer should be used for these events.
> >
> > > I'd like the rfkill system to eventually cover cases A - D, and also
> > > handle radio block state notifications and queries. I'm willing to help
> > > code that. Actual power levels of the radio is probably best left up to
> > > the device-specific subsystem, but at least the state (and events!) of
> > > "radio now blocked" or "radio now unblocked" are useful to have.
> >
> > Unless I missed something, I have provided you with that for cases
> > A to D already. What I didn't provide you with was "radio now blocked and
> > you cannot unblock it", *yet*. You have convinced me it is something
> > needed, and if left to my own devices, I will implement it as a third
> > state.
>
> But again, we don't need a third state! We need to separate the radio
> block state from the rfkill switch state.
Let me explain this a bit more.
- My original request was based on my flawed understanding of the
current scope of the rfkill system
- If the rfkill system is _only_ supposed to handle switches that turn
the radio off automatically, then a "third state" for the rfkill class
really serves _no_ purpose at all, because the radio's already blocked
when the switch is thrown
- There are drivers that implement rfkill (laptop-specific BIOS drivers)
that have _no_ associated transmitter device; thus the current 'struct
rfkill' can only be a representation of the _switch_; thus a "third
state" would be useless here as well (as is the toggle_radio() callback)
- It just seems a lot clearer to me to have a separation between the
rfkill switch and the radio bits since there's no need to tie them
together
Dan
> Not all radios have rfkill switches attached to them, and thus having a
> 3rd rfkill state just doesn't work. In the case of hp-wmi, there is no
> killswitch associated with the wireless device, it's handled by BIOS and
> does not necessarily have interaction with the transmitter.
>
> Having a 3rd state on a killswitch which can't physically _have_ 3
> states isn't right. The switch is often completely independent of the
> radio, and that's something we need to represent.
>
> Because of that, the toggle_radio() member of struct rfkill just isn't
> in the right place. That changes _radio_ block state, but since struct
> rfkill is the _switch_, toggle_radio() is wrong here. In the case of
> hp-wmi, there's no radio to toggle, since it's a hardswitch, and since
> hp-wmi isn't a wireless driver!
>
> Again, we need to separate radio block state from switch state, because
> they are two different things. We don't need to break anything here; we
> just need to add some bits for radio block state.
>
> Dan
>
> > HOWEVER, rfkill can't provide you with "radio is enabled, configured,
> > operational and transmitting" status. It really can't say much of what
> > is happening in the unblocked state.
> >
> > > > Currently we can't differentiate "block changes by the user" from "the
> > > > kernel can change the state if you ask it to". I agree this is a
> > > > desireable feature, and I'd rather add a third rfkill_state to propagate
> > > > that information.
> > >
> > > Well... I still think this is best as a _radio_ property, not as a
> > > killswitch property. Physical switches are physical, you can't change
> > > the state and thus the third state here isn't useful. If we separate
> > > switch state from radio power state that makes it clear (at least to
> > > me).
> >
> > But then you have more than one "switch" per radio, which needs changes
> > to rfkill (currently, you are NOT to do it).
> >
> > Currently, one is to think of a rfkill class as the representation of
> > the "radio property". Which means you *lose the information* of which
> > underlying hardware/firmware reason the device has to be blocked.
> >
> > I think we are actually better off by losing that information, it is
> > not useful for UIs (you need to know the device is force-blocked, not
> > WHY it is blocked or force-blocked -- that is highly platform-specific).
> >
> > > Since the current rfkillX device is the _switch_, and since I'm not
> > > aware of any machines where the BIOS synthesizes a toggle state from a
> > > non-toggle button, maybe we should punt this until such a device
> > > actually turns up?
> >
> > The current rfkillX device represents the radio state, which means it might
> > need to synthesize it from various hardware bits.
> >
> > E.g. Let's look at a possible conversion of IPW2200 to the rfkill class.
> >
> > The IPW2200 driver has TWO rfkill "registers":
> > R1 - Read/Write, controlled by the driver
> > R2 - Read-Only, reflects an input pin in the hardware and cannot be
> > overriden.
> >
> > The IPW2000 driver would register just *one* instance of the rfkill class,
> > and it would return the status as this.
> >
> > Assume R1 active high, and R2 active high. Active means BLOCK RADIO.
> >
> > rfkill_status = (R1 | R2) ? RFKILL_STATUS_OFF : RFKILL_STATUS_ON.
> >
> > I.e. if either one (or both) of the registers are blocking the radio, it
> > reports the status as RFKILL_STATUS_OFF. Otherwise, it reports the status
> > as RFKILL_STATUS_ON (unblocked).
> >
> > Now, for the toggle_radio function in pseudo-code:
> >
> > switch (new_state) {
> > case RFKILL_STATUS_ON:
> > if (R2) {
> > R1 = 1; /* fail safe, least surprise */
> > return -EPERM; /* cannot override! */
> > }
> > R1 = 0;
> > break;
> > case RFKILL_STATUS_OFF:
> > R1 = 1;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > There are possible variations, the most pressing one that comes to mind
> > is whether we should force the R1 switch to 1 or 0 when R2 is 1 on the
> > RFKILL_STATUS_ON branch. I used the "won't EVER cause the radio to be
> > unblocked by surprise" alternative.
> >
> > However, now userspace really gets to know if the ipw2200 radio is blocked or not,
> > it doesn't have to hunt down two different rfkill class instances for it. And it
> > just needs to listen to uevents (which HAL should be taught to export to DBUS) for
> > ipw2200 to know when the status changes, no pooling or even reading of sysfs
> > attributes would be required.
> >
> > If you wanted to also handle txpower off through rfkill, you'd take the state of
> > txpower into consideration on the code above, and still have only ONE rfkillX
> > instance for the ipw2200 device.
> >
> > > > > The only thing I personally care about is separating radio state from
> > > > > switch state so that I can distinguish a softkill (via ex. iwconfig
> > > > > wlan0 txpower off) from a hardkill via a real killswitch.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so what you care about is to know if you COULD CHANGE THE STATE,
> > > > correct?
> > >
> > > Could change the radio _block_ state, yes. rfkill switch state no,
> >
> > I mean the radio _block_ state. See above. One rfkill class per device,
> > synthesizing the state of n, n>=1 real switches. So, you get the radio
> > block state from it.
> >
> > > because I don't know of any examples of those and frankly I think it's
> > > easier to just make the user flip the switch again. Keeping it simpler
> > > is better.
> >
> > I'd agree with this view, least surprise is good, and the way the whole
> > rfkill idea was engineered to leave the transmitter BLOCKED in cause of
> > doubt.
> >
> > > > The third state would tell you that.
> > > >
> > > > > Why should a "device rfkill state" be in a separate module? Radio state
> > > > > _is_ rfkill state. rfkill switches turn the radio on or off but
> > > >
> > > > device-wide rfkill state is rfkill state. radio state could be
> > > > anything.
> > >
> > > I started using "radio block state" in this mail instead.
> >
> > Ok, radio block state is also good. As long as we both know exactly
> > what we mean by it.
> >
> > > > But yes, I understand what you want. The two states you talk about are
> > > > the same if you have only ONE rfkill class attached to a device, and
> > > > they are different (but related) things when you have MORE than one
> > > > rfkill class attached to a device.
> > >
> > > What situations would have more than one rfkill class attached to the
> > > device?
> >
> > If you try to model IPW2200 or other hardware with many rfkill input signals
> > as one signal per rfkill class. That's something that is probably NOT a good
> > idea at all.
> >
> > > > IMO, we should attach just one rfkill class per transmitter device, and
> > > > handle the "you cannot change the state" possibility by adding a third
> > > > state to rfkill_state.
> > >
> > > Right about the one rfkill class per device than drives a killswitch.
> > > But that's not necessarily the transmitter device. It might be a child
> > > of the laptop module if it's a BIOS switch that also kills the radio
> > > automatically. In the case of hp-wmi, it provides 3 different rfkill
> > > class devices.
> >
> > Which is why I want to do it in a way we don't have to know what is a
> > child of what, slaved to what, master of what...
> >
> > > > > devices should have _one_ method of turning themselves off through
> > > > > either hardware or software, and the system that provides that method
> > > > > should be the rfkill system.
> > > >
> > > > We don't agree there. If you use "devices should have _one_ method of
> > > > *forcing themselves off* outside of the normal control path of interface
> > > > up/down", THEN we agree.
> > >
> > > Right, all devices with transmitters should have _one_ method of
> > > blocking and unblocking their transmitters.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > > The reason is extremely simple: rfkill CANNOT TURN SOMETHING ON. If it
> > > > *was* ON, and you used rfkill to turn it OFF, than yes, when you "stop
> > > > turning it OFF through rfkill", it will go back to ON.
> > > >
> > > > But if it was not ON in the first place, it won't go to ON when you stop
> > > > turning it OFF through rfkill. It will just remain OFF, unless
> > > > something else that is NOT rfkill hooks into the event and takes the
> > > > oportunity to do whatever is needed (such as configure the interface and
> > > > bring it up) to bring the device to ON state.
> > >
> > > Good point.
> >
> > It is a very central point to rfkill, if you lose track of it, things get
> > very confusing, very very quickly.
> >
> > > > > > Anyway, if we are to use various *related* rfkill switches per device,
> > > > > > rfkill needs further changes, including an extra callback into the
> > > > > > driver, so as to be able to export the device rfkill state also in all
> > > > > > switch rfkill state events (otherwise these events become quite useless
> > > > > > for many uses).
> > > > >
> > > > > But yes, there would need to be a "device rfkill state" changed event
> > > > > and another call to get the device rfkill state.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. It is a possiblity. I still feel a third addition to
> > > > rfkill_state and the use of only ONE rfkill class per transmitter device
> > > > is a better way to do it.
> > >
> > > As I said above, I think I disagree about the third state. I think the
> > > best thing to do is keep the general rfkill switch operation as it is
> > > now (only 2 states, blocked and unblocked), and eventually add a
> > > standard "radio block state" sysfs entry on the _transmitter_ device
> > > with 3 values: hw-blocked, sw-blocked, and unblocked.
> >
> > If we mandate the one-rfkill-class-per-transmitter rule, you now have two
> > attributes that say the very same thing, except that the old one (the one
> > we currently have) lacks the force-blocked state. So basically, you just
> > avoided a minor ABI change by not adding the third state to rfkill_state.
> >
> > If we mandate the one-rfkill-class-per-kill-line rule, you will add
> > complexity, now a driver like IPW2200 would need at least two rfkill
> > class instances. In THIS case, the new attribute conveys interesting
> > information, but OTOH, NM and any user application will have to deal
> > with more than one rfkill sysfs instance per device, and we will have
> > weird issues to deal with, like how to deal with user_claim...
> >
> > The reason I insist on the third state so much is that rfkill *really*
> > was not designed to cope with two or more per transmitter. You now
> > have to mess with various rfkill switches to get something to happen
> > (and most of the time, all but one will EPERM you, because they are
> > read-only, and my subconsious mind is severely screaming up this is
> > a BAD IDEA, we currently forbid read-only switches and I recall there
> > were some subtle issues with the input layer events for read-only
> > stuff).
> >
> > > Does that sound OK? I feel like I have a better understanding of what
> >
> > It WOULD work, I think. But for the reasons above, I am more inclined
> > to add a third state. It is much simpler on the code, and it has no
> > drawbacks I can see, while the multiple rfkill per device approach does
> > have some (and it gives me a bad feeling every time I consider it).
> >
> > What whould be the technical advantages of a separate attribute
> > from your UI (NM) point of view? That is not yet clear to me, at
> > all. Assume you will only get ONE rfkillX interface per device,
> > which means it DOES reflect the block/unblock state of the device.
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
