From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.184]:49647 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755285AbYIRSKk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:10:40 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so18788muf.1 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: A patch for control of the radio LED using rfkill Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:10:35 +0200 Cc: Larry Finger , John W Linville , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <48d1e227.AmBwRnEuhx6kxlHv%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200809181948.27507.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200809181957.00151.mb@bu3sch.de> In-Reply-To: <200809181957.00151.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200809182010.35285.IvDoorn@gmail.com> (sfid-20080918_201043_726976_50B8A00A) From: Ivo van Doorn Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:48:27 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > Well no actually, when the radio state (software rfkill state in your words) > > No, "radio state" is _not_ "software rfkill state" in my words. > It's an independent state. > The actual physical radio state is a combined state of the two sw and hw state bits. > If either bit blocks the radio, it's physically blocked. We cannot toggle the hw bit > from software. Ah ok. In that case b43 should do: send HW_BLOCK when the hardware rfkill state is set to block send SOFT_BLOCK when the software rfkill state is set to block But it shouldn't (and that change was the start of this discussion) send SOFT_BLOCK when mac80211 disabled the radio. > > it shouldn't be send to rfkill at all. rfkill should only be informed about the hardware > > rfkill state changes. > > So that's fine. We just revert the patch that caused all the trouble and we will > gain _exactly_ that. > > > > Do not change any software state from within the hardware state change handler. > > > This will blow up. > > > > When you use userspace tools this won't happen since the hardware state change handler > > will send an uevent to userspace which might act upon that, and will eventually send an > > instruction back to the hardware, but that goes through a different thread. > > It will semantically blow up. See the initial mail from Larry with the regression report. Ok. Ivo