[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302098968.4090.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:09:28 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Antonio Ospite <ospite@...denti.unina.it>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, openezx-devel@...ts.openezx.org,
"John W . Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Guiming Zhuo <gmzhuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 16:06 +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > > + if (regulator_is_enabled(vcc)) {
> > > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Regulator already enabled\n");
> > > + rfkill_data->reg_enabled = 1;
> > > + }
> > > + rfkill_init_sw_state(rf_kill, !rfkill_data->reg_enabled);
> > > +
> > > + ret = rfkill_register(rf_kill);
> >
> > We recently had a thread about how rfkill_init_sw_state() isn't quite
> > working the right way. Also, it is indented to be used for devices that
> > keep their state over resume. I think you should remove it here and rely
> > on rfkill to sync you after registration.
> >
> > Cf. the long thread here:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/49577
> >
>
> Ok, but I still need to replace that call with a rfkill_set_sw_state()
> to expose the initial status of the regulator to the rfkill system,
> right?
Well, you could, but if you don't do that then the rfkill subsystem will
simply call set_block() shortly after registration to put it into the
state that it thinks it should be in, which is usually more useful.
johannes
--
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