From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935072AbWLFPYN (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934378AbWLFPYN (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:13 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:35389 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935072AbWLFPYK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=I4kg50d7ccGMpxgPbuRCyN7gNP8msz1T1JPYNjJRkEpEOPehTzVXf+wM6npZibqgKE23kQNbbcry/z9jFIfh6osQTIC/T9QId++RoRAuyTRm4aMAFABtT+W3TRMwDzcmiUHM3y5+V+w6aleTs8XLEXlx2qaTzxZjO5aMMMQluDc= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:08 -0500 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Dan Williams" Subject: Re: [RFC] rfkill - Add support for input key to control wireless radio Cc: "Ivo van Doorn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "John Linville" , "Jiri Benc" , "Lennart Poettering" , "Johannes Berg" , "Larry Finger" In-Reply-To: <1165418339.2750.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200612031936.34343.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200612050027.15253.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <1165418339.2750.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/6/06, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:37 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Fans of the 3rd method, speak up ;) > > I think I brought up the 3rd method initially in this thread. I'm not > necessarily advocating it, but I wanted to be sure people realized that > this was a case, so that a clear decision would be made to support it or > not to support it. > > (2) makes the most sense to me. I don't think we need to care about > edge-cases like "But I only wanted to rfkill _one_ of my bluetooth > dongles!!!", that's just insane. > > But using (2) also begs the question, can we _always_ identify what > interface the rfkill belongs to? In Bastien's laptop, the rfkill switch > _automatically_ disconnects the internal USB Bluetooth device from the > USB bus, and uses the normal ipw2200 rfkill mechanism, whatever that is. > In this case, you simply do not get an event that the bluetooth device > is disabled from a button somewhere; it's just gone, and you'd have to > do some magic to disable other bluetooth devices as well. > Is this the same physical button? If so then for this particular box we'd just have to send 2 events - KEY_WIFI and KEY_BLUETOOTH at the same time. -- Dmitry