Search Linux Wireless

Re: [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:

> We really need to disentangle the state tracking rfkill does. People
> have said this a million times before, but nobody cares: drivers need to
> register hard-blocked and get soft-block states independently, not in a
> single enum; API for drivers needs to be, above all, EASY to use.

Also, the rfkill struct itself is a mess. What's get_state() for? Why is
this not layered? How can get_state() work correctly, it doesn't poll
the device so it doesn't look like software will ever get a state
update.

Then there's user_claim_unsupported which is set by all drivers but
rt2x00, probably because they have hardware kill switches and thus they
have to set it even if it's not strictly true, because of the lacking
separation between these things (that I pointed out)

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux