On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? That sounds about right. Dan -- 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
