* Question about rfkill
@ 2009-06-20 3:53 Larry Finger
2009-06-20 11:34 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2009-06-20 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: wireless
Johannes,
What is the reason that rfkill_get_global_sw_state() is not exported?
A call to this routine seems to be the ideal replacement for the
deprecated radio_enabled.
Larry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about rfkill
2009-06-20 3:53 Question about rfkill Larry Finger
@ 2009-06-20 11:34 ` Johannes Berg
2009-06-20 12:59 ` Larry Finger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2009-06-20 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry Finger; +Cc: wireless
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 445 bytes --]
Larry,
> What is the reason that rfkill_get_global_sw_state() is not exported?
> A call to this routine seems to be the ideal replacement for the
> deprecated radio_enabled.
No need, radio_enabled is intended to be removed, because if you rfkill
now cfg80211 will force the interfaces down. Some time later way may
need to add a way to disable just the radio again, but that will be
different and for different purposes.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about rfkill
2009-06-20 11:34 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2009-06-20 12:59 ` Larry Finger
2009-06-20 13:14 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2009-06-20 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: wireless
Johannes,
> No need, radio_enabled is intended to be removed, because if you rfkill
> now cfg80211 will force the interfaces down. Some time later way may
> need to add a way to disable just the radio again, but that will be
> different and for different purposes.
In b43/b43legacy, the driver can determine when the hw has required an
rfkill, but what is the "approved" method for determining if userspace
has killed it?
Larry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about rfkill
2009-06-20 12:59 ` Larry Finger
@ 2009-06-20 13:14 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2009-06-20 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry Finger; +Cc: wireless
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 07:59 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Johannes,
>
> > No need, radio_enabled is intended to be removed, because if you rfkill
> > now cfg80211 will force the interfaces down. Some time later way may
> > need to add a way to disable just the radio again, but that will be
> > different and for different purposes.
>
> In b43/b43legacy, the driver can determine when the hw has required an
> rfkill, but what is the "approved" method for determining if userspace
> has killed it?
That isn't necessary. In that case, cfg80211 notices that it was killed,
and (via mac80211) ends up calling the ->stop() callback.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-20 13:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-20 3:53 Question about rfkill Larry Finger
2009-06-20 11:34 ` Johannes Berg
2009-06-20 12:59 ` Larry Finger
2009-06-20 13:14 ` Johannes Berg
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.