On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Aug 2008, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> > All the radio-is-allowed-to-transmit decisions are rfkill's. The driver is >> > not allowed to override those. This is done to present a uniform behaviour >> > and interface to the system's user (and any instance of rfkill doing >> > something the user wouldn't expect to the radio is to be considered a major >> > bug). rfkill is supposed to represend the will of the system's user >> > regarding permission to transmit energy out of wireless transmitters. >> >> May point is that there are radio event out of scope rfkill so the >> driver although obey rfkill system > > Err, no. If it involves energy emission, if rfkill forbade it [which is to > be taken as the user forbade it], the driver must not, EVER, cause it to > happen. There are no exceptions. I didn't mean those kind of events :) iwlwifi driver has proper FCC certification. > > This is a safety thing, not a convenience thing. > >> > Sure. I was wondering about drivers that *don't* have it, if any, out of >> > the potential set of drivers that should be using rfkill (it is not a matter >> > of those who are using rfkill right now). >> >> I think we are aligned in general. > > I may still have it as optional, but I will switch the default behaviour > around. It will likely be useful for someone, and it is less than 10 LOC. I make an effort to remove it's a mess. Tomas -- 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
