[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wslpvrd9.fsf@denkblock.local>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:34 +0200
From: Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@...il.com>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] rfkill: document rw rfkill switches and clarify input subsystem interactions
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:48:05 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
[...]
>> +===============================================================================
>> +3: Kernel API
>> +
>> +To build a driver with rfkill subsystem support, the driver should depend on
>> +the Kconfig symbol RFKILL; it should _not_ depend on RKFILL_INPUT.
>> +
>> +The hardware the driver talks to may be write-only (where the current state
>> +of the hardware is unknown), or read-write (where the hardware can be queried
>> +about its current state).
>> +
>> +The rfkill class will call the get_state hook of a device every time it needs
>> +to know the *real* current state of the hardware. This can happen often.
>> +
>> +Some hardware provide events when its status change. In these cases, it is
>
> provides
Wouldn't that be "changes" as welll?
Regards,
Elias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists