linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de,
	hmh@hmh.eng.br
Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:07:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812102107.09568.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228933790.28590.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:29:50 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 19:05 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 17:51 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 
> > > They may not be physical buttons, but we can often control this anyway. 
> > > For instance, my HP has a button that will perform a hardware disable of 
> > > the wifi card. However, I can control that button's state through 
> > > software with the hp-wmi driver. 
> > 
> > That's indeed a complication I wasn't aware of.
> > 
> > > The way we currently handle that (and, 
> > > I think, the only way we *can* handle that) is to provide two separate 
> > > rfkill interfaces - one tied to the wireless device, one tied to the 
> > > platform device.
> > 
> > Yes, but how do we currently do this?
> > 
> > Does the wireless driver get the notification about this from the
> > hardware, like it would if this was a real physical switch? Then it's
> > probably pretty simple: provide a rfkill struct from the driver that
> > updates hard-kill and provide a second rfkill struct for the platform
> > device that doesn't get hard-killed, but also provide a soft-kill input
> > form the platform device. That way, you can toggle that button, but you
> > can also software-enable the platform rfkill device and that in turn
> > re-enables the wifi-rfkill "hw" switch device.
> 
> This sort of sucks for userspace, because we see the actual wifi card as
> hardblocked, but some other random button as softblocked.  There's no
> indication that changing the softblock one will affect the hardblocked
> one.  What are userspace processes supposed to do here, assume that if a
> non-radio-associated softblocked switch exists, that it can re-enable a
> hardblocked radio of some random wifi card?

I don't see the problem.
If userspace wants to enable wifi, it should simply _try_ to do so:
Userspace sees hw-block and sw-block state:
- Unblock the sw state
- Re-fetch hw-block and sw-block state
- If either one is blocked, we can't enable the radio.
- Notify user.

-- 
Greetings, Michael.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-12-10 20:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-10 15:09 [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 16:15   ` Ivo van Doorn
2008-12-10 16:51   ` Marcel Holtmann
2008-12-10 17:18     ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:23       ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:28         ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 21:33           ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-12-10 21:42             ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 17:31         ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 17:37           ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 17:51             ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 18:04               ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 18:05               ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 18:09                 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-10 18:29                 ` Dan Williams
2008-12-10 18:33                   ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-10 18:59                     ` Dan Williams
2008-12-10 20:07                   ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2009-03-29 18:19     ` Johannes Berg
2008-12-11  0:32   ` Julian Calaby
2008-12-11  1:27     ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-11 13:28       ` Kalle Valo
2008-12-10 15:48 ` Michael Buesch
2008-12-10 16:12   ` Matthew Garrett
2008-12-11 16:55 ` Larry Finger
2008-12-12  4:28 ` Larry Finger
2008-12-17 15:48   ` John W. Linville

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200812102107.09568.mb@bu3sch.de \
    --to=mb@bu3sch.de \
    --cc=bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de \
    --cc=dcbw@redhat.com \
    --cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
    --cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).