[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8C2C6C.2020007@dell.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@...l.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: Alan Jenkins <sourcejedi.lkml@...glemail.com>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
cezary.jackiewicz@...il.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add rfkill support to compal-laptop
Hi Johannes:
Thanks for looking.
Johannes Berg wrote:
> Ah, heh, thanks Alan for pointing out there was a patch here :)
>
>
>
> I don't quite understand the "| radio" bit since that seems to be the
> soft kill bit according to rfkill_set()?
>
Yeah you're right, this bit was unnecessary. I pulled it out.
> Anyhow, here you reject the request to set the soft bit. I suspect you
> could let it go through but it would only change the soft bit in the
> BIOS, nothing else really.
>
> Two options:
> 1) You can let it go though, in that case do that, and remove the sw
> block stuff from poll() completely.
>
> 2) You can't let it go through. In this case, you need to leave set as
> it is, but implement poll like this:
>
> sw_block = rfkill_set_hw_state(rfkill, hw_blocked);
> compal_rfkill_set(data, sw_block);
>
> so that when the user soft-blocks the device while hard-blocked, the
> soft block is still honoured after pushing the button on the laptop.
>
>
OK, the second option sounds more desirable, so I've implemented that.
--
Mario Limonciello
*Dell | Linux Engineering*
mario_limonciello@...l.com
View attachment "02_add_rfkill_support.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (3802 bytes)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (261 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists