On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 00:04 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Philip Langdale wrote: > > Ivo van Doorn wrote: > >> > >> You don't seem to be using rfkill_force_state() which is required to inform the rfkill > >> layer about the state changes. > > > > Hmm? According to rfkill.txt, one can either use force_state() or implement the > > get_state() hook, and I have done the later. If this is not the correct method, > > can you please explain when I should be using force_state? > > There is a bunch of rfkill bug fix patches that was not merged in > wireless-testing yet (which is a pity, it would be really good if they could > go into 2.6.27). One of those patches fixes the docs to make it clear that Lots of wireless people (including John) were at OLS this past week, so it's not entirely surprising that patch merging might have been slow. Dan > rfkill_force_state() is the way to go if you have events of any sort. > > The big difference from get_state() is that rfkill_force_state() propagates > state changes as soon as your driver notices them and sends them to rfkill > through rfkill_force_state()... while get_state() can only do that when > someone asks rfkill about the current state. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
