Re: [Acpi4asus-user] [PATCH 2.6.31] rfkill: allow toggling soft state in sysfs again

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

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 <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
> > > 
> > > 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 <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> 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 <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
>     Tested-By: Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
>     Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
> 
> Didn't make -rc4, should be in -rc5.

Great, thanks!

Best,
Rafael