Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add rfkill support to compal-laptop

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]

Hi everyone,

> > I'm attaching the updated patch (sorry, git send-email seems to still
> > not be very graceful with line breaks when the SMTP implementation is
> > exchange from what i've seen)
> 
> > +static void compal_rfkill_poll(struct rfkill *rfkill, void *data)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long radio = (unsigned long) data;
> > +	u8 result;
> > +	bool hw_blocked;
> > +	bool sw_blocked;
> > +
> > +	ec_read(COMPAL_EC_COMMAND_WIRELESS, &result);
> > +
> > +	hw_blocked = !(result & KILLSWITCH_MASK);
> > +	sw_blocked = (!hw_blocked && !(result & radio));
> > +
> > +	rfkill_set_states(rfkill, sw_blocked, hw_blocked);
> > +}
> 
> I assume you have good reason for having sw_block depend on hw_block.
> I.e. you can't read sw_blocked while hw_blocked is set, right?
> 
> If KILLSWITCH is toggled on and off, will the hardware "forget" any
> prior soft-blocks?

That's a bit strange indeed, but I haven't seen the rest of the code.

Does the 'soft block' bit change based on user input, like pressing a
button?

If not, you shouldn't poll that bit at all, but just set it based on
what rfkill gives you as the return value of set_hw_state().

hth,
johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]