Hi!
> > In fact it looks quite weird that one blink per 5 seconds can break the
> > keyboard, in fact.
>
> Not wierd at all. The driver uses panic_blink - something that we expect
> to work after panic. It rapidly polls KBC status register to detect when
Aha. Can we get rid of that driver? It i
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 20:24, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
> > No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONFIG_BLINK on, that is
> > one blink
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
> No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONFIG_BLINK on, that is
> one blink per 5 seconds or something.
> We should rename CONFIG_BLINK to
>
Hi!
> > * It breaks keyboards. Yes, we are talking about maybe-broken i8042s,
> > but it still breaks thinkpads at least.
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONF
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> * It breaks keyboards. Yes, we are talking about maybe-broken i8042s,
> but it still breaks thinkpads at least.
Hi Pavel,
this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubs
Hi!
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
>
> As the blink module was initially written for kdump, and as the kernel
> is relocatable on lots of a
Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-18 06:26]:
+static int blink = 0;
no need to init to 0.
Does it harm?
It adds space to the binary file in some cases and it is kernel
convention not to init statics to NULL or 0 since that is already
guaranteed for them.
+m
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-18 06:26]:
> > +static int blink = 0;
>
> no need to init to 0.
Does it harm?
> > +module_param(blink, bool, S_IRUGO);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(blink, "Enable blinking (without that, the module does
> > nothing)\n");
>
> unneeded "\n"
Fixed. Please use
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:39:04 +0200 Bernhard Walle wrote:
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
>
> As the blink module was initially written for k
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:39 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
it also has a 1000Hz timer in it... which sucks pow
This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
As the blink module was initially written for kdump, and as the kernel
is relocatable on lots of architectures, the
11 matches
Mail list logo