Re: rfkill, stupid question #6

[Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:02:29PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>     
>>> Right now, you should still rfkill_force_state().  Please wait for an hour
>>> or two while I clean up that broken resume handling, and I will tell you for
>>> sure.
>>>       
>> Cool. I'll hold off posting my cleanups until then in that case.
>>     
>
> Ok, two bugs reproduced, the fixes are ready and tested, and I will be
> sending it now to linux-wireless.  You're in the CC, so you will get them.
>
> I will also need to send patches for -stable, as the ones for mainline won't
> apply to -stable.
>
> Now, for what you asked: you DO NOT HAVE to use rfkill_force_state() in your
> driver's resume method, as long as you NEVER make use of
> RFKILL_STATE_HARD_BLOCKED.   I have fixed the bug that was messing this up.
>   

Thanks for fixing this, even though it doesn't affect my
non-STATE_HARD_BLOCKED-using hardware.

I have one more question.  I read that if a STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED request
is made when the hardware is in STATE_HARD_BLOCKED, the rfkill driver is
expected to "double block".

If the hard block is later cleared, the driver is expected to call
rfkill_force_state(SOFT_BLOCKED).  The SOFT_BLOCKED state can then be
cleared as normal.

But if there is an UNBLOCK request in the double-blocked state, the
rfkill core will reject it and preserve the  double-blocked state.  Is
this intended, or a known issue?

Wouldn't it be simpler to use a bitmask so that the rfkill core can at
least represent this double-blocked state?  I guess the problem would be
how to shoehorn it into the sysfs interface.

Thanks
Alan