[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305226377.10961.12.camel@rklein-linux2>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:52:57 -0700
From: Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: "olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: rfkill: add generic gpio rfkill driver
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:40 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:23 -0700, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>
> > > Are you sure starting out with UNSPECIFIED works? Then you'll always
> > > change, but if the clock was enabled already you still enable it on the
> > > first set_block() from rfkill, which still has the refcount problem, no?
> > > It seems to me that the original state has to be passed in from the
> > > platform?
>
> > I thought about that. But I decided the clock that it is possible to
> > have the clock used for the radio used for something else right?
>
> Sure.
>
> > in
> > which case, the driver will leave the clk in whatever state it initially
> > finds it. I.e. if the clock is disabled, then it will enable it only
> > once and work, if it is enabled, it will add a refcount (only once) and
> > then work and disable it again only once. It never changes the refcount
> > in either direction by more than 1, and this way the initial setting of
> > the clock is irrelevant. The board files can simply initialize the block
> > as off if that is the initial clk state they want.
>
> The issue is that depending on how you boot, the first refcount change
> might be +1 or it might be -1.
>
> If rfkill decides that at the time of loading wifi should be off, then
> the first change would be -1, and after that it would flip between 0 and
> -1.
>
> If, on the other hand, rfkill decides that at the time of loading the
> driver wifi should be on, then the first change would be +1 and it'll
> flip between 0 and +1.
>
> This seems like it'll cause issues at some point, so I think you should
> either allow the driver to set the initial state or hardcode one of
> these possibilities (so at least it's predictable)
>
> johannes
>
I won't go negative, if you look, it only will disable clock if it knows
it has already enabled it.
rhyland
--
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