Return-path: Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.183]:48520 "EHLO el-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822AbYJaSft (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:49 -0400 Message-ID: <40f31dec0810311135w76c01729lef1a6c93f18c0095@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081031_193554_374046_B37D6F53) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:35:47 +0200 From: "Nick Kossifidis" To: "Matthew Garrett" Subject: Re: ath5k gets lost with eeepc-laptop removal Cc: "Alan Jenkins" , "Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@linux.intel.com, lrodriguez@atheros.com In-Reply-To: <20081031142318.GA9009@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <20081031110502.18e33eba@doriath.conectiva> <490B0D75.8020601@tuffmail.co.uk> <20081031142318.GA9009@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2008/10/31 Matthew Garrett : > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:51:49PM +0000, Alan Jenkins wrote: > >> Matthew: I nagged you twice about different consequences of this >> commit, so here's a third :). You said rfkill no longer automatically >> frobs on suspend/resume, which was what I was worried about last time. >> Should the core code also be modified so it doesn't do anything when >> the rfkill device is unregistered? > > I think there's definitely an argument in favour of that, though I > suspect that's a design feature - if you remove the control mechanism > for a radio, the safe state for that radio to be in is not transmitting. > It doesn't leave the radio in a state that's not transmitting, it leaves the card in a state that doesn't get any power at all. I don't see any reason for this, how do you define "safe" ? -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick