Re: 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
--
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/

Relevant Pages