On Wednesday 17 September 2008 01:32:40 Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:30:35PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > > > I didn't say it was not possible. What I said is that _ONLY_ the > > operator's finger could change the state, just like in your laptop. > > Thus it makes absolutely no difference what state RFKILL thinks it is > > in. > > Of course it makes a difference. The reason why two states are provided > is to allow userspace to distinguish whether it can unblock the device > or not. It's clear that b43's rfkill code is astonishingly broken (and > that's not a criticism of anyone involved - the documentation's > confusing and there weren't any good examples of how it should be > implemented). > > The real question is how the LED state is supposed to be being toggled, > and what that's got to do with rfkill. I /think/ that the current state > of events is: Read the rfkill code. It toggles a LED trigger if the state changes from UNBLOCKED to BLOCKED. b43 uses that trigger to run the radio LED. > 1) User toggles state > 2) b43 changes rfkill state (by using rfkill_force_state). The LED state > should also be changed in the process. No it shouldn't. LEDs are entirely handled by triggers. We must _never_ toggle the LED state from within b43 directly via hardcoded stuff. rfkill is responsible for handling the radio LEDs in the machine. -- Greetings Michael. -- 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
