Hi,
> > > It maybe workaround another rfkill-input issue, but causes it replicate acer-wmi's
> > > bluetooth killswitch initial state (or any driver that used rfkill_init_sw_state)
> > > to any new bluetooth killswitch.
> > >
> > > It's not make sense.
> >
> > I think the reason is that rfkill-input only has a global concept of
> > per-device states. The alternative would be to force a newly registered
> > rfkill device to the state that was set by rfkill-input.
>
> Yes
I don't know if that works though. Does it make more sense? I'm not
sure. Why bother with "persistent" then anyway? I think the logic as we
had it was meant to make things follow the persistent state you had
before you shut down and that was saved in the BIOS or whatever.
> > Is it possible that acer-wmi reports both a hotkey event _and_ an rfkill
> > event?
>
> Emit needlessly KEY_BLUETOOTH when acer-wmi initial may not a good idea
> if there have any userland daemon to listen the keycode.
>
> I am trying to remove rfkill_init_sw_state then workaround this issue
> in .set_block by maintain a driver initial flag in acer-wmi.
No I mean ... it seems that the BIOS reports both a hotkey and an rfkill
event. Could those be clashing?
It seems that what happens is roughly this:
1) at boot, all BT is set to soft-killed due to the way the BIOS
started up
2) when you press the button, it's a toggle, so rfkill-input toggles
all BT rfkill instances (acer and hci0)
3) now acer _also_ reports, via rfkill_set_sw_state(), that the acer BT
rfkill instance is not soft-blocked
Then again, even that should work fine? Clearly I don't understand the
issue yet.
> Does it possible we add this rfkill module option for user can control
> disable rfkill-input when rfkill driver probed?
>
> Because, distro was shipped with different company's machine, like: Acer
> or MSI, different machines almost have different wifi/bluetooth/wwan key
> use case.
Well, I don't think we should require a config to work "out of the box",
so I'm not sure that makes sense.
> Sometimes, we want to use rfkill-input, but sometimes we have userland
> GUI application to provide rfkill control panel to end user. We already
> used urfkill daemon to disable rfkill-input by ioctl way, but like this
> issue, it was happen on driver probe.
Yeah but when urfkill starts up, it could just force the status it
thinks things have. Since it can simply override the current status
there doesn't seem to be a need for disabling the logic first.
Still though I don't understand how we arrive at the issue at all.
OldÅich, can you run "rfkill event" while you press the button with a
stock kernel that shows the problem and no patches?
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
