On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 06:37:23PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > Ok. I think the fundamental flaw here is assuming that there's just a > single state. There isn't. The device can be turned off in hardware (in > which case sw won't be able do anything about it, but we want to know) > or in software (which we want to handle). Pretending that there's just a > single state that's either hw-off, sw-off or on is plain wrong. The > device can be hw-off and sw-off at the same time, and then if you turn > off the hw-off button it won't turn on (however, unless your system > integrator totally screwed up, you won't have a hw and a sw button on > your system) They may not be physical buttons, but we can often control this anyway. For instance, my HP has a button that will perform a hardware disable of the wifi card. However, I can control that button's state through software with the hp-wmi driver. The way we currently handle that (and, I think, the only way we *can* handle that) is to provide two separate rfkill interfaces - one tied to the wireless device, one tied to the platform device. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
