On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 01:05 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > I am not sure if registring a notifier would be the best solution, > > persionally I was thinking of implementing the rfkill structure into ieee80211_local > > and make it listen to events directly. I think I like this better. > That's definitely other option we wanted to suggest that mac80211 > would register itself to rfkill subsystem and will provide to driver > appropriate callbacks. The question is how drivers vary in the rfkil > implementation and whether it wouldn't be more complex, in that case > the notification is quite clean solution. How complex does it have to be? > > That means that the only change needed in ieee80211_ioctl_siwtxpower() is > > only allowing the enabling of the radio when RFKILL is not set to BLOCKED. > > That's just complicates everything and moving the policy decisions to > the driver after all even > form txpower off you implement it as soft rfkill. > > I would suggest just remove the support for txpower off in mac80211 > now when appropriate or sync it with soft block after all it coming > from user space as a software event. I think what we should do is in mac80211 simply synthesize the "radio_enabled" state that the config callback has from both rfkill and txpower off. Anything wrong with that? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
