Re: [PATCH] b43: RF-kill support

[Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 27 September 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 27 September 2007 23:23:45 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 23:12:43 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 22:54:44 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -2401,8 +2401,7 @@ static void b43_periodic_every1sec(struc
> > > > > > >  	radio_hw_enable = b43_is_hw_radio_enabled(dev);
> > > > > > >  	if (unlikely(dev->radio_hw_enable != radio_hw_enable)) {
> > > > > > >  		dev->radio_hw_enable = radio_hw_enable;
> > > > > > > -		b43info(dev->wl, "Radio hardware status changed to %s\n",
> > > > > > > -			radio_hw_enable ? "ENABLED" : "DISABLED");
> > > > > > > +		b43_rfkill_toggled(dev, radio_hw_enable);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Isn't it better to use the input_polldev for scheduled input device checking?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +static void b43_notify_rfkill_press(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	struct b43_rfkill *rfk = container_of(work, struct b43_rfkill,
> > > > > > > +					      notify_work);
> > > > > > > +	struct b43_wl *wl = container_of(rfk, struct b43_wl, rfkill);
> > > > > > > +	struct b43_wldev *dev;
> > > > > > > +	enum rfkill_state state;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Same here, input_polldev was created especially for hardware
> > > > > > devices that don't trigger interrupts when the button was pressed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah, well. Will change that later. This works for now.
> > > > 
> > > > It might work, but this means that userspace is not made aware of
> > > > the key toggling and would thus make rfkill useless in this case.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, sure. But it's not useless. The other functionality is still available.
> > > I'll fix that. But in a seperate patch. No need to delay this one because
> > > of this (IMO) minor issue.
> > 
> > I agree, no need to delay this patch.
> > 
> > But since I never added proper documentation from the start of rfkill,
> > and rt2x00 did it wrong for a while as well, I just wanted to make sure you
> > were aware of the correct approach. :)
> 
> Yeah, thanks. I thought this was correct.
> So if it's not correct to use the "switch" API function from outside, please
> remove it from the public header and put it into some private inside of
> the net/rfkill directory.

Will do. :)

Ivo