On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2008 20:23:21 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > On Thursday 18 September 2008 20:10:35 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > > On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:48:27 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > > > > Well no actually, when the radio state (software rfkill state in your words) > > > > > > > > > > No, "radio state" is _not_ "software rfkill state" in my words. > > > > > It's an independent state. > > > > > The actual physical radio state is a combined state of the two sw and hw state bits. > > > > > If either bit blocks the radio, it's physically blocked. We cannot toggle the hw bit > > > > > from software. > > > > > > > > Ah ok. In that case b43 should do: > > > > > > > > send HW_BLOCK when the hardware rfkill state is set to block > > > > send SOFT_BLOCK when the software rfkill state is set to block > > > > > > > > But it shouldn't (and that change was the start of this discussion) send SOFT_BLOCK > > > > when mac80211 disabled the radio. > > > > > > I'm kind of confused. You say one thing and revert it right in the next sentence. > > > > Ehm now you are confusing me. > > You state that software rfkill state is not the state as requested by mac80211. > > > Nono. I will try to explain it once again. It's really easy. > > Think of b43 having two independent registers for rfkill. (the actual hardware > is different, but that doesn't matter. It's a driver internal implementation detail). > One of these registers is readonly and it does indicate the physical rfkill button state. > If that register indicates BLOCK, we can't do anything about it. The radio is blocked. Which qualifies for a HW_BLOCK signal > However, we can still write to the second register and turn the radio off through > that, too. We can also write to the second register to turn the radio on, _but_ it won't > physically turn on until the physical button is pressed and the first register changes > to Unblocked. Since the hardware doesn't toggle this field when a key is pressed, it is more the state of the radio as configured by mac80211. And thus shouldn't generate RFKILL events. > So you say that rfkill should only be notified about changes in the first read-only > hardware intication bit? If that's the case, it would be possible to turn the radio off > through mac80211 calls (using the read-write register), but still have rfkill think it's > unblocked. Right. Because how I see the rfkill layer is that it doesn't represent the RADIO state but the RFKILL state (and uses that to control the RADIO state). 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
