Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- From: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:27:48 +0000
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Alan Jenkins wrote:Documentation/rfkill.txt implied otherwise
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.
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 instead of just setting a default in
rfkill_allocate().
Thanks
Alan
--
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
- Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- References:
- eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- From: Alan Jenkins
- Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- From: Matthew Garrett
- eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] tags: link from CONFIG_x to 'config x' as well
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] fix compile breakage caused by 2ae111cdd8d83ebf9de72e36e68a8c84b6ebbeea
- Previous by thread: Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- Next by thread: Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4 and 5
- Index(es):