[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807101517.38109.IvDoorn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0200
From: Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@...il.com>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc: Cezary Jackiewicz <cezary.jackiewicz@...il.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH -next 2/2] acpi,rfkill,backlight: comapl-laptop update - use rfkill switch subsystem
On Thursday 10 July 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > It is not mandatory if you are writing rfkill support for a driver that does not
> > come with a rfkill switch. Such drivers can make use of the rfkill events produced
> > by the hardware which does have such a switch.
> >
> > When the hardware does have the rfkill switch, then yes rfkill_force_state() is mandatory.
> > The get_state() callback function is optional, and allows rfkill to differentiate
> > between soft and hardblock.
>
> Do you want me to mark rfkill_force_state() as mandatory in the docs? It
> *IS* the preferred way to deal with firmware/hardware-initiated state
> changes, after all.
Please do. Thanks.
> The rfkill subsystem will limp along without it, even when there are
> hardware rfkill lines... but no OSD function will work, as the system will
> pick up the change only when someone reads or writes to the state
> attribute...
That reason alone is good enough for me to mark it mandatory for any drivers
which features the rfkill key. :)
Ivo
--
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