Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755941AbYKCOz6@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755941AbYKCOz6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:55:58 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756064AbYKCOzs
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:55:48 -0500
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:43804 "EHLO
	vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755816AbYKCOzr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:55:47 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:55:43 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
Cc: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux acpi <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: eeepc-laptop rfkill, stupid question #4
Message-ID: <20081103145543.GA496@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20081031171126.GA17313@srcf.ucam.org> <490B4014.4040009@tuffmail.co.uk> <490B70A3.8010108@tuffmail.co.uk> <20081102040008.GB29606@khazad-dum.debian.net> <490D8C4E.3010201@tuffmail.co.uk> <20081102130655.GA12766@srcf.ucam.org> <20081103141628.GB31078@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20081103141836.GA31894@srcf.ucam.org> <490F0ACC.4000808@tuffmail.co.uk> <20081103145145.GD31078@khazad-dum.debian.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081103145145.GD31078@khazad-dum.debian.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vavatch.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 23

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:51:45PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> Not if you can enter or exit HARD_BLOCK, you're not.  If you cannot it is
> fine.  But if you can, you really need to rfkill_force_state() on resume,

The state can always be overridden by software, so I think we're fine 
there.

> And the rfkill core seems to be buggy when you call force_state() on resume,
> which you guys didn't hit because you're not doing it yet.  See my other
> email...

Just to make sure: in the case where we *don't* support hard blocking, 
there's no need to do anything special in the driver on resume and 
rfkill should (but currently doesn't) do the right thing itself?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/