From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" Subject: Re: [RFC] rfkill - Add support for input key to control wireless radio Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200612031936.34343.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200612050027.15253.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <1165418339.2750.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Ivo van Doorn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "John Linville" , "Jiri Benc" , "Lennart Poettering" , "Johannes Berg" , "Larry Finger" Return-path: To: "Dan Williams" In-Reply-To: <1165418339.2750.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 12/6/06, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:37 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Fans of the 3rd method, speak up ;) > > I think I brought up the 3rd method initially in this thread. I'm not > necessarily advocating it, but I wanted to be sure people realized that > this was a case, so that a clear decision would be made to support it or > not to support it. > > (2) makes the most sense to me. I don't think we need to care about > edge-cases like "But I only wanted to rfkill _one_ of my bluetooth > dongles!!!", that's just insane. > > But using (2) also begs the question, can we _always_ identify what > interface the rfkill belongs to? In Bastien's laptop, the rfkill switch > _automatically_ disconnects the internal USB Bluetooth device from the > USB bus, and uses the normal ipw2200 rfkill mechanism, whatever that is. > In this case, you simply do not get an event that the bluetooth device > is disabled from a button somewhere; it's just gone, and you'd have to > do some magic to disable other bluetooth devices as well. > Is this the same physical button? If so then for this particular box we'd just have to send 2 events - KEY_WIFI and KEY_BLUETOOTH at the same time. -- Dmitry