Hi Alan, > >> In practice I suspect it makes no difference that the rfkill and > >> backlight devices are exported as virtual devices with no physical > >> parent. I just don't think it's "right" :-). > > > > it actually does make a difference for hardware detection. We wanna have > > them hanging of the compal platform device. > > Ok. I wasn't sure that userspace was allowed to rely on that, but I > re-read Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices and I see now that it > can be allowed. > > Some of these issues with the compal-laptop work may come from copying > dell-laptop. dell-laptop is the only driver which creates rfkill > devices without a parent device. In fact, it doesn't even create a > platform device :-). then that should be fixed. All RFKILL switches should really have a parent and not dangling around the virtual tree. Especially since they have physical hardware in the system. > I'll try sending a patch or two to clean up dell-laptop. I don't have > the hardware but it should be pretty mechanical, almost a copy+paste > job from a "good" driver. That would be good. I don't have the hardware either, but others here can test it. Regards Marcel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
