[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100226173230.0479bf94@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:32:30 +0100
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] enhance sysfs rfkill interface
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:11:22 +0100
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.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
--
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