* Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state [not found] <000301cab69f$ec61ad00$c5250700$%chung@samsung.com> @ 2010-03-02 20:50 ` Andrew Morton 2010-03-03 0:47 ` Jaehoon Chung 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-03-02 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 정재훈 Cc: linux-kernel, linux-wireless, John W. Linville, Johannes Berg, Alan Jenkins Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added. On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900 _________ <jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote: > Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state. > when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked & unblocked is operating on the > contrary. > > Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> > > --- > net/rfkill/core.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c > index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644 > --- a/net/rfkill/core.c > +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c > @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill > *rfkill, bool blocked) > if (rfkill->state & RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL) > bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV; > > - if (blocked) > + if (!blocked) > rfkill->state |= bit; > else > rfkill->state &= ~bit; Are you sure? What problems were you observing with the existing code? Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour. The current code _looks_ OK to me. If bool `blocked' is true, we set the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state 2010-03-02 20:50 ` [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state Andrew Morton @ 2010-03-03 0:47 ` Jaehoon Chung 2010-03-03 9:37 ` Alan Jenkins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jaehoon Chung @ 2010-03-03 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel, linux-wireless, John W. Linville, Johannes Berg, Alan Jenkins Ok Next time, i will add sutatble cc's scripts/get_maintainer.pl. thanks.. > Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added. > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900 > _________<jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote: > > >> Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state. >> when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked& unblocked is operating on the >> contrary. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung<jh80.chung@samsung.com> >> >> --- >> net/rfkill/core.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c >> index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644 >> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c >> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c >> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill >> *rfkill, bool blocked) >> if (rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL) >> bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV; >> >> - if (blocked) >> + if (!blocked) >> rfkill->state |= bit; >> else >> rfkill->state&= ~bit; >> > Are you sure? What problems were you observing with the existing code? > Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour. > > The current code _looks_ OK to me. If bool `blocked' is true, we set > the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit? > I implemented the wlan driver using rfkill. In my source code, the wlan driver initalized to RFKLL_USESR_STATE_UNBLOCKED.. if that is correct, maybe do working the unblocked...but not work "unblocked" below code is unblock's operation..right? rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED); but, do not operate unblocked. please check that source code.. thanks for your comment, Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state 2010-03-03 0:47 ` Jaehoon Chung @ 2010-03-03 9:37 ` Alan Jenkins 2010-03-03 10:14 ` Jaehoon Chung 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Alan Jenkins @ 2010-03-03 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jh80.chung Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, John W. Linville, Johannes Berg Jaehoon Chung wrote: > Ok Next time, i will add sutatble cc's scripts/get_maintainer.pl. > thanks.. >> Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added. >> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900 >> _________<jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state. >>> when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked& unblocked is operating >>> on the >>> contrary. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung<jh80.chung@samsung.com> >>> >>> --- >>> net/rfkill/core.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c >>> index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644 >>> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c >>> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c >>> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill >>> *rfkill, bool blocked) >>> if (rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL) >>> bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV; >>> >>> - if (blocked) >>> + if (!blocked) >>> rfkill->state |= bit; >>> else >>> rfkill->state&= ~bit; >>> >> Are you sure? What problems were you observing with the existing code? >> Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour. >> >> The current code _looks_ OK to me. If bool `blocked' is true, we set >> the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit? >> > I implemented the wlan driver using rfkill. > In my source code, the wlan driver initalized to > RFKLL_USESR_STATE_UNBLOCKED.. > if that is correct, maybe do working the unblocked...but not work > "unblocked" > > below code is unblock's operation..right? > rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED); > > but, do not operate unblocked. > please check that source code.. I see the problem :). The hint is in the _USER_ - those constants are not for use by drivers. You want this instead: rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, false); (assuming you really want init_sw_state(). Please do check that your device state is persistent, as described by the comment in rfkill.h). Regards Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state 2010-03-03 9:37 ` Alan Jenkins @ 2010-03-03 10:14 ` Jaehoon Chung 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Jaehoon Chung @ 2010-03-03 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Jenkins Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, John W. Linville, Johannes Berg Alan Jenkins wrote: > Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> Ok Next time, i will add sutatble cc's scripts/get_maintainer.pl. >> thanks.. >>> Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added. >>> >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900 >>> _________<jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state. >>>> when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked& unblocked is >>>> operating on the >>>> contrary. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung<jh80.chung@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> net/rfkill/core.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c >>>> index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644 >>>> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c >>>> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c >>>> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill >>>> *rfkill, bool blocked) >>>> if (rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL) >>>> bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV; >>>> >>>> - if (blocked) >>>> + if (!blocked) >>>> rfkill->state |= bit; >>>> else >>>> rfkill->state&= ~bit; >>> Are you sure? What problems were you observing with the existing code? >>> Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour. >>> >>> The current code _looks_ OK to me. If bool `blocked' is true, we set >>> the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit? >> I implemented the wlan driver using rfkill. >> In my source code, the wlan driver initalized to >> RFKLL_USESR_STATE_UNBLOCKED.. >> if that is correct, maybe do working the unblocked...but not work >> "unblocked" >> >> below code is unblock's operation..right? >> rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED); >> >> but, do not operate unblocked. >> please check that source code.. > > I see the problem :). The hint is in the _USER_ - those constants are > not for use by drivers. You want this instead: > > rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, false); > > (assuming you really want init_sw_state(). Please do check that your > device state is persistent, as described by the comment in rfkill.h). > > Regards > Alan > Oh...i checked the comment in rfkill.h. i didn't see that comment. thanks for your opinion..:) Regards Jaehoon Chung ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-03 10:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <000301cab69f$ec61ad00$c5250700$%chung@samsung.com>
2010-03-02 20:50 ` [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state Andrew Morton
2010-03-03 0:47 ` Jaehoon Chung
2010-03-03 9:37 ` Alan Jenkins
2010-03-03 10:14 ` Jaehoon Chung
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).