lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
    Alan Jenkins wrote:
    > Matthew Garrett wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Alan Jenkins wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Did you miss a call to rfkill_force_state() on resume?
    >>>
    >>>
    >> Conceivably. I didn't test the hibernation case.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Actually, normal boot doesn't preserve the setting either. Your commit
    >>> changes the behaviour from the rfkill state being persistent across
    >>> reboot / power off (as a bios setting), to being always enabled on
    >>> boot. It seems like a bad idea to me.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> This is the behaviour of the rfkill core.
    >>
    >>
    > Documentation/rfkill.txt implied otherwise
    >
    > You should:
    > - rfkill_allocate()
    > - modify rfkill fields (flags, name)
    > - modify state to the current hardware state (THIS IS THE ONLY TIME
    > YOU CAN ACCESS state DIRECTLY)
    > - rfkill_register()
    >
    >
    > Admittedly it doesn't say "and I promise not to gratuitously override
    > the state on registration". Buti t seems weird though, to override the
    > value on registration
    Ah, I see. Wrong end - of course the *rfkill device* doesn't have
    useful state. The persistent state belongs to the *rfkill switch* - it
    could even be a physical switch.

    And now it's clear what was missing from the conversion to rfkill:

    2. Input device switches (sources of EV_SW events) DO store their
    current state
    (so you *must* initialize it by issuing a gratuitous input layer
    event on
    driver start-up and also when resuming from sleep)

    Regards
    Alan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-31 21:57    [W:0.023 / U:89.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site