From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Is rfkill class really appropriate for eeepc-laptop? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:55:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20080926135517.GA6273@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20080918133144.GA4338@silver.sucs.org> <48D564A8.7030009@xandros.com> <20080921102246.GA27071@silver.sucs.org> <48D660C5.6070204@xandros.com> <48D69052.1040908@tuffmail.co.uk> <48D6AC5E.70502@xandros.com> <48DCE881.5000501@tuffmail.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:35800 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751841AbYIZNzm (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:55:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48DCE881.5000501@tuffmail.co.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Jenkins Cc: corentincj@iksaif.net, Woody Suwalski , Sitsofe Wheeler , acpi4asus-user@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-acpi On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:49:53PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > I was wrong to say that rfkill support was already in mainline. But it > is introduced by Matthew's patch "eeepc-laptop: Use standard > interfaces", as posted and reviewed on the linux-acpi list. I think > this is a bad idea. Surely the whole point of rfkill is to let > NetworkManager do power management *without* having to do different > things for different laptops? No, it's to use allow the OS to control whatever mechanism the platform provides for making the radio stop transmitting. The fact that this is, uh, "interestingly" implemented on the Eee doesn't alter that. We should just sort out the hotplug code... -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org