[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] [Resend] ideapad: using EC command to control rf/camera power
Hi Mario,

I look at the DSDT again and again but unfortunately can not find anything
may cause the bluetooth device initial failed. BTEN looks like the switch
for EC to turn on/off bluetooth, BTST records the status of BTEN and BTPS
means bluetooth present. But no idea why initial failed after BTEN=1

So I fall back to your suggestion. Have a module parameter to tell module
not to register rfkill for bluetooth.

I prepare the driver and please spend some time testing. Driver is at;a=blob;f=drivers/platform/x86/ideapad-laptop.c;h=c4cf46a363f3f72d6db5339ec326d282d7e58183;hb=26a58948693b7d25960299a8025e569e68f28937

and you may use "insmod ideapad-laptop.ko no_bt_rfkill=1" for your S12.

For more information, please see the following link:;a=commit;h=26a58948693b7d25960299a8025e569e68f28937

On 09/02/2010 03:56 AM, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:49:52PM +0800, Ike Panhc wrote:
>> Your log tells a lot. It tells me if the bluetooth init failed. Then we
>> have to turning off and power on again by hw switch to make it alive again.
>> So, I believe we have two issue here.
>> * when rfkill unblock, sometimes bluetooth init failed.
> Yes.
>> * power up system after rfkill block bluetooth, sometimes the cfgbit = 0xc0000
>> Am I correct?
> Not completely.
> * reboot system after rfkill block bluetooth, sometimes the cfgbit = 0xc0000
> I never had cfgbit = 0xc0000 when I power-cycled the system, only when I
> rebooted it.
> This is why I belive the second point has virtually the same reason as
> the first point: bluetooth device initialization fails and thus its
> detection by BIOS fails and thus ACPI returns 0xc0000 cfg.
> Hence, I belive chances are high that solving the first point does also
> solve the second.
> While thinking about it... the init problems persisting a reboot could
> also mean that not the unblock operation is the real issue but the block
> operation - which probably leaves the bluetooth device in kind of a
> semi-disabled state or something like that.
> regards
> Mario

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-03 11:09    [W:0.128 / U:3.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site