From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761754AbYDLM1d (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:27:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759984AbYDLM1Z (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:27:25 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:40217 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759924AbYDLM1Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:27:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=rTM+2QCvxGs1qMEs5TFd+iHer0V9pcrSP8aG2e+AmaiI4YP0euKnPWhfX3j8wHuBJl0R0sBM0NFqaJ8zU996RprWrIC0BGTdqdwXbaCMzwwXK3y8sUVHsH7QmsTdQ2WV2OjxqNLslRXJ44MdIAQ9eijYhACUPotM/PJuLcLldGQ= To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] rfkill: add the WWAN radio type Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:28:56 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez , =?iso-8859-1?q?I=F1aky_P=E9rez-Gonz=E1lez?= , "John W. Linville" , "David S. Miller" References: <1207946244-14525-1-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br> <200804121236.45670.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <20080412121554.GB3402@khazad-dum.debian.net> In-Reply-To: <20080412121554.GB3402@khazad-dum.debian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804121428.57071.IvDoorn@gmail.com> From: Ivo van Doorn Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 12 April 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Friday 11 April 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > Unfortunately, instead of adding a generic Wireless WAN type, a technology- > > > specific type (WiMAX) was added. That's useless for other WWAN devices, > > > such as EDGE, UMTS, X-RTT and other such radios. > > > > Then perhaps we should replace WiMAX with the WWAN type? > > And have KEY_WIMAX interact with WWAN, or rename KEY_WIMAX to KEY_WWAN as > well? > > I do think it should be OK to do both renames, since it is very unlikely > that a device would have keys for WIMAX and WWAN at the same type. We > don't even have to rename KEY_WIMAX, we can have KEY_WWAN and KEY_WIMAX map > both to the same keycode. > > Inaky? I would say rename, having multiple key definitions mapped to the same keycode sounds like a bad idea to me. > > > Add a WWAN rfkill type for generic wireless WAN devices. No keys are added > > > as most devices use KEY_RADIO for WWAN control and need no specific keycode > > > added. > > > > In the discussion around the WiMAX addition I do remember people wanted > > it to have a seperate key code because it was "different technology". Wouldn't that > > be the same for all WWAN technologies? > > IMO, this is an USER INTERFACE part of the kernel. The user will either > interact with radios one-by-one (and the rfkill class provides this anyway, > even without separate types), or he will want to deal with abstract > concepts: "all radios", "wireless wan", "wireles lan", "personal-space > radios (UWB, BT)"... > > I.e. I am not even sure we should have UWB and BT as separate types... but > naming UWB "Bluetooth" would be wrong, too, so a proper fix there is harder > (breaks stable ABI with userspace). > > > Aka, should the WiMAX keycode be changed to a WWAN keycode in input.h > > and then be used for all WWAN rfkill switches? > > I'd think so. > > We can add a desc field to rfkill with a more human-friendly, not required > to be unique, description of the switch. > > e.g.: "Intel WiMAX 1234 radio switch" > "ThinkPad builtin bluetooth switch" > > and so on. It will be far more useful than making the switch type a > technology-granular thing. And it will be useful for GUIs in userspace. Sounds good. Ivo