From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bu3sch.de ([62.75.166.246]:35449 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753501AbYIRSRj (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:17:39 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: Ivo van Doorn Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: A patch for control of the radio LED using rfkill Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:17:12 +0200 Cc: Larry Finger , John W Linville , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <48d1e227.AmBwRnEuhx6kxlHv%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200809181957.00151.mb@bu3sch.de> <200809182010.35285.IvDoorn@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200809182010.35285.IvDoorn@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200809182017.12685.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080918_201742_601074_42A0B931) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 18 September 2008 20:10:35 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > 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. I'm kind of confused. You say one thing and revert it right in the next sentence. -- Greetings Michael.