[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080820014211.GA7592@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:42:11 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, corentincj@...aif.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Awkward rfkill corner cases
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:32:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Then, I have no futher comments. Looks good to me.
Excellent, glad I've got that right.
One completely unrelated question. In the following situation (relevant
to Dells, not the Eee)
* The system has a key (not a switch) that in firmware disables the
hardware (HARD_BLOCKED)
* That key generates an event through the keyboard controller, but not
through any other obviously detectable means
* The radio control is also controllable through software (SOFT_BLOCKED)
Should pressing the key generate a KEY_WLAN event?
I note that rfkill-input will, if the device is in HARD_BLOCKED state,
attempt to set it to UNBLOCKED. This sounds like generating the keycode
is the wrong thing to do, since it'll cause rfkill-input to try to undo
the change that's just been made. However, if the key isn't mapped
there's no obvious way for any of the stack to determine that a change
has been made and propagate that to userspace. What should we be doing
here?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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