On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > On 03/26/2011 07:55 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > >wu zhangjin wrote: > >>On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Hin-Tak Leung > >><htl10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>Wu Zhangjin wrote: > >>>>led can not be turned off normally when rfkill is blocked, the cause is > >>>>the led_turn_off() function exit as not expected: > >>>Hmm. While this sounds more sensible, is it needed? And what does the > >>>windows driver do? > >>> > >>>I think there are two kind of LEDs - one that comes on and off with the > >>>rfkill switch; Larry or Herton makes the 2nd one, if there is one, blink > >>>while there is traffic (and stay steady on otherwise). > >> > >>I have used this driver on the YeeLoong netbook(only support Linux), > >>there is only one LED for rtl8187, when there is traffic, it blinks > >>perfectly, but If press the hotkey to turn off the rf, the network > >>interface is down, but the LED is still light, then, the users may > >>mistakenly think the hotkey or rfkill support doesn't work or simply > >>think the interface is still on. So, that's why we may need to fix it. > > > >My laptop (a Toshiba one) has the other kind of LED - the LED only comes on and > >off in relation to the rfkill switch, and does not blink with traffic. I think > >Herton or Larry has some devices with both types. I had one via based netbook with proper led, but don't have it anymore. > > > >Hmm, I seem to have the impression that there is code somewhere for switching a > >singular LED's behavior of the driver between one or the other, by echo'ing into > >sysfs or some other trickery? Or would that be a desired approach if that's not > >done at the moment? > > My rtl8187 devices are both external USB sticks, thus they have no > interaction with a radio-kill switch. I will test your patch to make > sure it does no harm to my system. > > I think the commit message should be revised. A simple statement > like "the LED does not turn off when the rfkill switch is off" > should be sufficient. The patch should work, but I wonder if we should be fiddling with priv->vif for this, perhaps we should not assume vif to be valid after rtl8187_remove_interface (I don't see problems with current rtl8187/mac80211 code on a quick look, but...) I cleaner solution may be to use a priv->mode like p54. > > Larry > -- []'s Herton -- 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
