Re: [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code

Johannes Berg
2008-12-10T17:24:13Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:

> We really need to disentangle the state tracking rfkill does. People
> have said this a million times before, but nobody cares: drivers need to
> register hard-blocked and get soft-block states independently, not in a
> single enum; API for drivers needs to be, above all, EASY to use.

Also, the rfkill struct itself is a mess. What's get_state() for? Why is
this not layered? How can get_state() work correctly, it doesn't poll
the device so it doesn't look like software will ever get a state
update.

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)

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]