From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:37966 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751393AbYLQQAY (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:00:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:48:01 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Larry Finger Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, hmh@hmh.eng.br Subject: Re: [RFC] b43: rework rfkill code Message-ID: <20081217154800.GA12679@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20081217_170030_769021_5E4233D5) References: <20081210150935.GA10927@srcf.ucam.org> <4941E863.50703@lwfinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4941E863.50703@lwfinger.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:28:19PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I've reworked the rfkill code in b43. This ought to be more consistent > > with the other drivers and it seems to work on the machines I've tested > > it on here, but it'd be good to get some feedback. > > How does this look to people? > > All this discussion about hard vs soft rfkill makes my head hurt and I have > stopped reading those posts. > > Correction to my earlier post. If the system is booted with the RF switch off, > the LED is on, whereas it should be off. The original code works correctly. Based on the above, I'm dropping this patch. Please submit a non-regressing version! :-) John -- John W. Linville Linux should be at the core linville@tuxdriver.com of your literate lifestyle.