Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/8] rfkill: add the WWAN radio type | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:28:56 +0200 | From | Ivo van Doorn <> |
| |
On Saturday 12 April 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Friday 11 April 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > Unfortunately, instead of adding a generic Wireless WAN type, a technology- > > > specific type (WiMAX) was added. That's useless for other WWAN devices, > > > such as EDGE, UMTS, X-RTT and other such radios. > > > > Then perhaps we should replace WiMAX with the WWAN type? > > And have KEY_WIMAX interact with WWAN, or rename KEY_WIMAX to KEY_WWAN as > well? > > I do think it should be OK to do both renames, since it is very unlikely > that a device would have keys for WIMAX and WWAN at the same type. We > don't even have to rename KEY_WIMAX, we can have KEY_WWAN and KEY_WIMAX map > both to the same keycode. > > Inaky?
I would say rename, having multiple key definitions mapped to the same keycode sounds like a bad idea to me.
> > > Add a WWAN rfkill type for generic wireless WAN devices. No keys are added > > > as most devices use KEY_RADIO for WWAN control and need no specific keycode > > > added. > > > > In the discussion around the WiMAX addition I do remember people wanted > > it to have a seperate key code because it was "different technology". Wouldn't that > > be the same for all WWAN technologies? > > IMO, this is an USER INTERFACE part of the kernel. The user will either > interact with radios one-by-one (and the rfkill class provides this anyway, > even without separate types), or he will want to deal with abstract > concepts: "all radios", "wireless wan", "wireles lan", "personal-space > radios (UWB, BT)"... > > I.e. I am not even sure we should have UWB and BT as separate types... but > naming UWB "Bluetooth" would be wrong, too, so a proper fix there is harder > (breaks stable ABI with userspace). > > > Aka, should the WiMAX keycode be changed to a WWAN keycode in input.h > > and then be used for all WWAN rfkill switches? > > I'd think so. > > We can add a desc field to rfkill with a more human-friendly, not required > to be unique, description of the switch. > > e.g.: "Intel WiMAX 1234 radio switch" > "ThinkPad builtin bluetooth switch" > > and so on. It will be far more useful than making the switch type a > technology-granular thing. And it will be useful for GUIs in userspace.
Sounds good.
Ivo
| |