From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de,
hmh@hmh.eng.br
Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:07:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812102107.09568.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228933790.28590.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:29:50 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 19:05 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 17:51 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > That's indeed a complication I wasn't aware of.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes, but how do we currently do this?
> >
> > Does the wireless driver get the notification about this from the
> > hardware, like it would if this was a real physical switch? Then it's
> > probably pretty simple: provide a rfkill struct from the driver that
> > updates hard-kill and provide a second rfkill struct for the platform
> > device that doesn't get hard-killed, but also provide a soft-kill input
> > form the platform device. That way, you can toggle that button, but you
> > can also software-enable the platform rfkill device and that in turn
> > re-enables the wifi-rfkill "hw" switch device.
>
> This sort of sucks for userspace, because we see the actual wifi card as
> hardblocked, but some other random button as softblocked. There's no
> indication that changing the softblock one will affect the hardblocked
> one. What are userspace processes supposed to do here, assume that if a
> non-radio-associated softblocked switch exists, that it can re-enable a
> hardblocked radio of some random wifi card?
I don't see the problem.
If userspace wants to enable wifi, it should simply _try_ to do so:
Userspace sees hw-block and sw-block state:
- Unblock the sw state
- Re-fetch hw-block and sw-block state
- If either one is blocked, we can't enable the radio.
- Notify user.
--
Greetings, Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-10 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-10 15:09 [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 16:15 ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-12-10 16:51 ` Marcel Holtmann
2008-12-10 17:18 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:23 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:28 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 21:33 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-12-10 21:42 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 17:31 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 17:37 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:51 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 18:04 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 18:05 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 18:09 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 18:29 ` Dan Williams
2008-12-10 18:33 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 18:59 ` Dan Williams
2008-12-10 20:07 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2009-03-29 18:19 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-11 0:32 ` Julian Calaby
2008-12-11 1:27 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-11 13:28 ` Kalle Valo
2008-12-10 15:48 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 16:12 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-11 16:55 ` Larry Finger
2008-12-12 4:28 ` Larry Finger
2008-12-17 15:48 ` John W. Linville
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200812102107.09568.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de \
--cc=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.