[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200809182012.18723.IvDoorn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:12:18 +0200
From: Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: clarify usage of rfkill_force_state() and rfkill->get_state()
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 19:32 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
>
> > Ideal situation would indeed be that mac80211 registers a rfkill structure
> > and listens to rfkill events. This would help drivers by only needing to
> > register a rfkill structure for state-change events without any need for
> > listeners.
>
> Yup.
>
> > I was considering such a patch some time ago, but needed to figure out
> > how to work with the state-override capabilities (HW_BLOCK and SOFT_BLOCK)
> > and didn't work on it any further since.
>
> So make the struct part of the hw structure? Then drivers can just use
> that to force hard events. Or actually, no, don't do this, make a new
> mac80211 call:
>
> ieee80211_inform_hardblocked(BLOCK/OPEN)
>
> which makes sure we can also try to not associate in this case in the
> future...
Yeah, unfortunately that wasn't the probablematic part. ;)
Anyway when I have some time available I'll see if I can sort it out and
make it work. But that will not be for another week or 2.
Ivo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists