Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...>, Iñaky Pérez-González <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...>, John W. Linville <linville@...>, David S. Miller <davem@...>
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?
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).
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.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
