On Sunday 26 July 2009, John W. Linville wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:56:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday 10 July 2009, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 22:09 +0100, Darren Salt wrote: > > > > I demand that Johannes Berg may or may not have written... > > > > > > > > > Apparently there actually _are_ tools that try to set this in sysfs > > > > > even > > > > > though it wasn't supposed to be used this way without claiming first. > > > > > > > > Then it should have been documented as such. I don't see anything about > > > > this > > > > in Documentation/rfkill.txt (as found in 2.6.30), other than a vague > > > > statement that "Kernel handles events", which isn't exactly helpful :-\ > > > > > > Oh, it's not just that rfkill was horrible, the documentation matched :) > > > All the SHOUTING in it about what you must and must not do but nothing > > > actually helpful :) > > > > > > > > *shrug*, I don't like it, but whatever... > > > > > > > > I do. It means that we have a nice simple text-based interface for use > > > > in > > > > scripts (for now), and a binary interface which is better suited to the > > > > likes > > > > of desktop applications. > > > > > > Indeed, and as long as you expect to only use soft toggle... problem is > > > that you won't know whether it's soft-toggled or not while it's > > > hard-blocked (off)! > > > > > > > > Please test & report. > > > > > > > > With the patch applied, Bluetooth toggling is working again, so you get > > > > to > > > > add this: > > > > > > > > Tested-By: Darren Salt <[email protected]> > > > > > > Ok, John, please pick up the patch. > > > > Is there anything going on with the patch? > > > > Surely it's not in -rc4. > > commit f54c142725ad2ba33c3ee627873cb6966bf05447 > Author: Johannes Berg <[email protected]> > Date: Fri Jul 10 21:41:39 2009 +0200 > > rfkill: allow toggling soft state in sysfs again > > Apparently there actually _are_ tools that try to set > this in sysfs even though it wasn't supposed to be used > this way without claiming first. Guess what: now that > I've cleaned it all up it doesn't matter and we can > simply allow setting the soft-block state in sysfs. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]> > Tested-By: Darren Salt <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <[email protected]> > > Didn't make -rc4, should be in -rc5.
Great, thanks! Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
