Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: create useful userspace interface
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk,
	John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1243778069.5299.0.camel@johannes.local>
References: <1243524688.10632.0.camel@johannes.local>
	 <9b2b86520905310651g41babab2hb05729b0699dd81f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1243778069.5299.0.camel@johannes.local>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:03:48 +0200
Message-Id: <1243796628.6570.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi Johannes,

> > How should userspace test CONFIG_RFKILL_INPUT to determine whether
> > it's safe to start the daemon?  With the old core, debian-eeepc
> > scripts check if the module rfkill-input exists (which should work
> > even if it's built in).  If it exists, the scripts don't perform any
> > rfkill actions.  (Yeah, according to the doc this is not allowed
> > because the scripts don't use "claim", but you can see how it's
> > useful).
> > 
> > The new rfkill-input isn't a module, so I'm not sure how your daemon
> > would test for it.
> 
> Maybe we should add an ioctl that disables rfkill-input if present.

I am against it. Can we just add a module parameter that allows us to
disable it. I am against cluttering a new interface with legacy stuff
since we are removing rfkill-input and replacing it by rfkilld anyway in
a near future (meaning when I am back from vacation).

Regards

Marcel