Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46834 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751672AbYIZOkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:40:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mac80211: notify mac80211 about rfkill events From: Dan Williams To: Johannes Berg Cc: Tomas Winkler , Ivo van Doorn , linville@tuxdriver.com, yi.zhu@intel.com, hmh@hmh.eng.br, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Emmanuel Grumbach In-Reply-To: <1222426905.10563.100.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1222357719-26294-1-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <200809252310.21320.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <1ba2fa240809251505p342d8a6do51cf870624e0c8dd@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080926_000546_677648_11D1E1E6) <1222426905.10563.100.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:39:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1222439964.19895.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> (sfid-20080926_164043_242517_F245ECA2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 01:05 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > > I am not sure if registring a notifier would be the best solution, > > > persionally I was thinking of implementing the rfkill structure into ieee80211_local > > > and make it listen to events directly. > > I think I like this better. > > > That's definitely other option we wanted to suggest that mac80211 > > would register itself to rfkill subsystem and will provide to driver > > appropriate callbacks. The question is how drivers vary in the rfkil > > implementation and whether it wouldn't be more complex, in that case > > the notification is quite clean solution. > > How complex does it have to be? > > > > That means that the only change needed in ieee80211_ioctl_siwtxpower() is > > > only allowing the enabling of the radio when RFKILL is not set to BLOCKED. > > > > That's just complicates everything and moving the policy decisions to > > the driver after all even > > form txpower off you implement it as soft rfkill. > > > > I would suggest just remove the support for txpower off in mac80211 > > now when appropriate or sync it with soft block after all it coming > > from user space as a software event. > > I think what we should do is in mac80211 simply synthesize the > "radio_enabled" state that the config callback has from both rfkill and > txpower off. Anything wrong with that? That sounds about right. Dan