From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:53289 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752489AbZHAWL3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:11:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: Add KEY_RFKILL_ALL From: Marcel Holtmann To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20090801215130.GA24201@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1249152859-14769-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <1249159133.3491.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090801204534.GA23642@srcf.ucam.org> <1249159942.3491.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090801205445.GA23751@srcf.ucam.org> <1249163327.3491.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090801215130.GA24201@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:11:25 -0700 Message-Id: <1249164685.3491.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Matthew, > > why is it confusing? I don't understanding your argument here. I think > > the KEY_RFKILL_ALL is confusing is the user policy then only kills WiFi > > devices or toggles between various on/off combinations. > > Having it be KEY_RFKILL implies that KEY_WLAN and similar aren't related > to rfkill. KEY_RFKILL_ALL implies that the key invokes policy on all > rfkill devices, which is the aim here. and that is what it should NOT imply. The policy if it applies to all internal devices, all devices in general or just WiFi or Bluetooth for example is up to the user. We are NOT going to have any kind of RFKILL policy in the kernel in the future. We will remove rfkill-input once we have a proper userspace solution (aka rfkilld or similar). Regards Marcel