On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:42:28 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Thursday 18 September 2008 15:47:42 Larry Finger wrote: > > > Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > > > > > Is dev->phy.radio_on set when mac80211 has send an instruction > > > > to the driver to enable the radio (start() or config() callback) > > > > or does it represent the key state in the hardware? > > > > > > > > If it is something coming from mac80211, then you do not want > > > > to send a SOFT_BLOCKED event since that will cause all other radios > > > > to be switched off simply because the b43 interface has not been > > > > enabled. > > > > > > > > Off course when it represents the key state in the hardware then the > > > > code would be fine... > > > > > > The state comes from mac80211 and is set in the config() callback. > > > > > > What state should be sent at the point when the hardware block is > > > removed? It seems to me that forcing an UNBLOCKED state gives the > > > wrong result. Perhaps RFKILL does need to have 4 states so that an > > > RFKILL_STATE_HW_UNBLOCKED state can be transmitted. > > > > If sw is unblocked, but hw is still blocked, you must not announce > > unblocked state to rfkill. > > Well from my perspective: > Note that 'sw' is the RADIO state as requested by mac80211 and > 'hw' is the RFKILL state as indicated by the hardware > > radio: block, rfkill: block => BLOCK > radio: block, rfkill: unblock => UNBLOCK
If the radio is physically blocked by the hardware rfkill switch, why on earth would we want to announce unblocked state? Or did I get your table wrong? (Still note that software and hardware states are _independent_ in b43. Think of it as two independent bits that can each turn the radio off, where the hardware state bit is readonly and is triggered by the hw-button). -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
