Re: [RFC] b43: A patch for control of the radio LED using rfkill

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

On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 18 September 2008 15:47:42 Larry Finger wrote:
> > Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > 
> > > Is dev->phy.radio_on set when mac80211 has send an instruction
> > > to the driver to enable the radio (start() or config() callback)
> > > or does it represent the key state in the hardware?
> > > 
> > > If it is something coming from mac80211, then you do not want
> > > to send a SOFT_BLOCKED event since that will cause all other radios
> > > to be switched off simply because the b43 interface has not been
> > > enabled.
> > > 
> > > Off course when it represents the key state in the hardware then the
> > > code would be fine...
> > 
> > The state comes from mac80211 and is set in the config() callback.
> > 
> > What state should be sent at the point when the hardware block is
> > removed? It seems to me that forcing an UNBLOCKED state gives the
> > wrong result. Perhaps RFKILL does need to have 4 states so that an
> > RFKILL_STATE_HW_UNBLOCKED state can be transmitted.
> 
> If sw is unblocked, but hw is still blocked, you must not announce
> unblocked state to rfkill.

Well from my perspective:
Note that 'sw' is the RADIO state as requested by mac80211 and
'hw' is the RFKILL state as indicated by the hardware

radio: block, rfkill: block => BLOCK
radio: block, rfkill: unblock => UNBLOCK
radio: unblock, rfkill: block => BLOCK
radio: unblock, rfkill: unblock => UNBLOCK

Ivo