Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 16:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
That would be more useful than the current enum, yes.
Dan, you do have a strong user case for "just software rfkilled", "just
hardware rfkilled" and "soft+hard rfkilled" as opposed to simply "software
rfkilled" and "hardware rfkilled, maybe software rfkilled as well" ?
No, I don't have a _NetworkManager_ usecase for being able to
distinguish between HW and HW+SW. Just an observation that stuff other
than NM might want to figure that out for UI or something.
Ok. I will still *try* to implement the fourth state, but I will post the
patch as a RFC. If it is too messy or complex, I will recommend that we
drop it.
I'm still a bit confused.
Suppose I have a laptop with a physical switch marked "radio" which
tells the OS which position it's in *and does nothing else* (via ACPI or
whatever) and a radio which has a (pure) software rfkill controller.
Suppose further that this laptop has a radio button as well.
This would look exactly like my Thinkpad X61s, except that the rfkill
switch would be connected to the rfkill controller in software, not
hardware.
I think it would have the exact same problem and the fourth state
wouldn't help because it would never be any variety of HARD_BLOCKED.
--Andy
--
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
