On Wednesday 10 December 2008 22:33:34 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:23 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > 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) > > > > IOW, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that user_claim_unsupported > > really is a wrong name for "has hw kill", which could be avoided if sw > > I never understood what user_claim_unsupported is for. I left it alone > because of that, but it looks like some artifact of the old rfkill that did > horrible things to the input layer. No, as I just explained. It comes from a time when we didn't have all that input stuff at all. It was a workaround. rfkill basically had a facility to change the hardware rfkill state from userspace. As b43 does not support that, I introduced the flag. Today we have three states (which is still broken, but you saw the rest of the thread...), so I guess we can remove it again. We cannot change the hardware state. That's what the flag is (was) for. -- Greetings, Michael. -- 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
