Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5

From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:11:26 +0000

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.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
  - From: Alan Jenkins

References:
- eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
  - From: Alan Jenkins

Prev by Date: Re: sched domains oddness.
Next by Date: Re: driver core: struct device - replace bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name()
Previous by thread: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
Next by thread: Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread