On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 14:21 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Here's what is (was :-) ) in rfkill-input: Heh :) I've been refactoring rfkill-input too -- but I haven't actually changed it. > 1. There are per-type global switches (and no "all" switch) > 2. There is a flag, EPO (emergency power off). > > rfkill-input translates any "EV_SW SW_RFKILL_ALL ACTIVE" events into "enable > EPO". It saves the states of the switches beforehand, so that it can > optionally restore them. > > When something enables the EPO, all switches go into block. And they refuse > to go out of block until the EPO flag is cleared. I.e. it has the proper > semantics for a safety device. > > What happens when you clear EPO isn't much. The rfkill core doesn't care > much, all that it knows is that switches are not prohibited to go out of > block anymore once the EPO flag is clear. > > rfkill-input, OTOH, can be configured to do one of three things when it gets > "EV_SW SW_RFKILL_ALL INACTIVE": > > 1. just clear the EPO flag (the user will have to go and manually unblock > the switches through sysfs or normal events that rfkill-input processes) > > 2. clear the EPO flag, and restore the global switches to the state previous > to the EPO > > 3. clear the EPO, and unblock all switches. Ok, that makes sense, and I think I understood this much already from cleaning out rfkill-input.c (which killed a few dozen lines of code w/o any functionality changes) > So, there is NOT an "all" switch. But there is the handling of the > SW_RFKILL_ALL event by rfkill-input. > > > > I can't say I strongly want it, since I am happy enough with rfkill-input, > > > though. But the API to userspace _is_ incomplete if the global states and > > > global functionality are not exposed. > > > > I've kinda removed the entire userspace API part from rfkill, mostly out > > of laziness (so I guess I'll add it back) but also because I don't quite > > see the point. Has anyone come up with a usecase for it? > > I'd talk that over with our Network Manager maintainer, he is the one who > might want it. As far as I understood him (he was giving an example), Dan doesn't care. But let's ask :) (CC'ed) Dan, would you want to have NM control rfkill from userspace, instead of using rfkill-input? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
