Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:32:30 +0100
From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] enhance sysfs rfkill interface
Message-ID: <20100226173230.0479bf94@schatten.dmk.lab>
In-Reply-To: <1267189882.18491.63.camel@violet>
References: <20100225233516.GD5218@khazad-dum.debian.net>
	<1267182094-15469-1-git-send-email-florian@mickler.org>
	<1267189882.18491.63.camel@violet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:11:22 +0100
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:

> Hi Florian,
> > blocked_[hs]w -> 0/1 makes IMO kind of sense.
> 
> the kernel and /dev/rfkill just talks about "hard" and "soft" blocks.
> 
> Don't confuse this with hardware and software. It seems were are keeping
> to make this stupid semantical error over and over again. So everything
> that says hardware, software, hw or sw in the API is bluntly wrong.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marcel
> 

Yes, ok. I agree that 'hardware block' for something 'out of
the control of the driver' seems to be too narrow...

Alright. How about blocked_soft and blocked_hard?

cheers,
Flo