On 09/15/2010 07:48 PM, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 06:13:43PM +0800, Ike Panhc wrote: >> On 09/10/2010 03:11 PM, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: >>> rfkill_init_sw_state(priv->rfk[dev], 0); >> eh.. after review the code, the rfkill_init_sw_state shall not give 0 as the default >> value. I shall read the value from EC and set reasonable value. > > Well - probably :) > The current behaviour results in each device becoming unblocked no > matter what state it had before. > >>> if (no_bt_rfkill && (ideapad_rfk_data[dev].type == RFKILL_TYPE_BLUETOOTH)) >>> ideapad_rfk_set(???, 0); >> Do you mean driver still setup the rfkill for bluetooth, but we can not block >> bluetooth when module parameter set to 1? This idea is better then no_bt_rfkill. >> Will modify the driver. > > Well, not really... I mean: in the no_bt_rfkill=1 case the driver should > (try to) unblock the bluetooth device in order to activate it to make it > further manageable via it's own (hci) rfkill switch. > I don't think setting up the ideapad_bluetooth rfkill is necessary for > that. Not setting it up is IMHO the right direction. Just the device > activation is missing. This sounds even better, will modify the driver in this way - force enable bluetooth and no setup rfkill for bluetooth when no_bt_rfkill. > > > Mario -- 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
