On 12/6/06, Dan Williams <[email protected]> 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]