On Tuesday 05 August 2008, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:03:29AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 20:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > And it is already damn clear that what we currently have (rfkill always > > > blocks on suspend) is not the correct way to go about it. WHAT I want to > > > know now is whether there are any drivers out there which need the current > > > behaviour. > > > > Ah! I seem to have misunderstood you. If some drivers _do_ need the > > current block-on-suspend behavior, I feel like that should be an > > internal driver decision that rfkill shouldn't need to be aware of. > > Drivers know how to suspend themselves; we shouldn't expect rfkill to > > know how certain hardware needs to suspend. > > I agree with Dan. Blocking and suspending should be separate operations. Like I said earlier, the main thing rfkill should do is to prevent the callback function being used while the device is suspended. And I definately agree on the statement that drivers are in charge to do what should be done for suspend. Ivo -- 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
