Hi, Marcel
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Zhangfei,
>
> first of all, please use linux-bluetooth mailing list and not the MCC
> one.
>
>> We found you have submitted one patch adding rfkill for bluetoogh.
>>
>> commit 611b30f74b5d8ca036a9923b3bf6e0ee10a21a53
>> Author: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon Jun 8 14:41:38 2009 +0200
>>
>> Bluetooth: Add native RFKILL soft-switch support for all devices
>>
>> With the re-write of the RFKILL subsystem it is now possible to easily
>> integrate RFKILL soft-switch support into the Bluetooth subsystem. All
>> Bluetooth devices will now get automatically RFKILL support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Question 1,
>> Once hci_register_dev is called, the rfkill_alloc is called, the
>> result is the rfkill number is increased one by one, the application
>> may not know which rfkill it is.
>> For example, insmod bt.ko -> rfkill0, rmmod bt; insmod bt.ko->
>> rfkill1, ~~ rfkill2, 3
>> Same effect would happen when echo 0 > /sys/class/rfkill/rfkill0/state.
>>
>> The reason is rfkill_register would increase rfkill->idx.
>> int __must_check rfkill_register(struct rfkill *rfkill)
>> {
>> static unsigned long rfkill_no;
>> ~~~
>> rfkill->idx = rfkill_no;
>> dev_set_name(dev, "rfkill%lu", rfkill_no);
>> rfkill_no++;
>>
>> ~~~
>> }
>>
>> Quesiton 2.
>> In fact, we have own rfkill to control power on and off, then
>> currently both our own rfkill and bluetooth rfkill need to be enabled.
>>
>> I am not sure what's the purpose of the rfkill adding in
>> hci_register_dev, just wander could we add one default state as
>> enabled for such rfkill. Then we could ignore this rfkill, no matter
>> the number is increased one by one.
>
> And second it is clearly the soft RFKILL switch. As usual a device can
> also have a hard kill switch.
>
> The index numbers are irrelevant. If the RFKILL switch is assigned to a
> device is will be a child of its parent, so it is easy to figure out
> where it belong. In case of platform switches it is impossible anyway
> and hence we have implemented CHANGE_ALL support.
>
Thanks for your explanation, however how to get hard kill switch.
Ususally we enable wifi via "echo 1 > sys/class/rfkill/rfkill0/state",
and enable bt via "echo 1 > sys/class/rfkill/rfkill1/state".
This method highly depends on the indelx number.
Could you kindly share me how to set hard kill switch, which may
irrelevant with the index number.
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
