On Thursday 18 September 2008 16:24:52 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > If it is something coming from mac80211, then you do not want > > > to send a SOFT_BLOCKED event since that will cause all other radios > > > to be switched off simply because the b43 interface has not been > > > enabled. > > > > Drivers ARE supposed to be able to set their radio state to their heart's > > content, without messing with any other devices. There are no constraints > > to calls to rfkill_force_state(), other than the current issue that it must > > not be done from an atomic context. > > My main point was that when the radio is not enabled because the user > did something like "iwconfig wlan0 txpower off" then this is not an rfkill > SOFT_BLOCKED event. Since that command has nothing to do with the > entire rfkill layer. > > When you consider such commands as rfkill events you get wrong behavior > because it would trigger a SOFT_BLOCK in rfkill which will be send to all > registered drivers who can disable their radio off as well. And that is > definately not what you want... Well, if that's the definition of the API, we must not force rfkill state to anything other than HW_BLOCKED or UNBLOCKED. I dunno how the API is defined... -- 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
