Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:05:16 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Rong-en Fan <grafan@gmail.com> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acpi_ibm(4): new radio kill switch (readonly) sysctl Message-ID: <4625A70C.1000506@root.org> In-Reply-To: <6eb82e0704172055l5bddca81t5b7e9e45a297a839@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb82e0704171645n5f7b2ca6h41b41016cdafad24@mail.gmail.com> <4625601C.9000201@root.org> <6eb82e0704172055l5bddca81t5b7e9e45a297a839@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rong-en Fan wrote: > On 4/18/07, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> wrote: >> Rong-en Fan wrote: >> > As pointed out by Henrik Brix Andersen, I adds a sysctl entry >> > that shows the status of radio kill switch found on some ThinkPad: >> > >> > http://people.freebsd.org/~rafan/acpi_ibm_killswitch.diff >> > >> > dev.acpi_ibm.0.killswitch = 0 means the switch is off. It seems that >> > no acpi event will be generated when the value changes (actually, >> > my x60 does not generate any events when I presses FN+something). >> > Otherwise, we can hook it in devd.conf and remove wireless driver when >> > kill switch is on... >> > >> > Any comments? >> >> Seems fine to me. But as to the name of the sysctl -- it should be more >> logical. How about renaming it to dev.acpi_ibm.0.radio_enable and when >> 1, the radio is enabled? Even if you have to invert the logic of the >> ACPI method, it would make more sense to users. They don't need to know >> what's going on under the hood. > > Good idea. I updated the patch: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~rafan/acpi_ibm_radio_switch.diff > > If you have ThinkPad other than X60, please help test this. This code seems suspect: + case ACPI_IBM_METHOD_RADIO_SWITCH: + acpi_GetInteger(sc->handle, IBM_NAME_RADIO_SWITCH_GET, &val); + sc->radio_switch_state = val; + val = (val != 0); + break; The switch state is set to the return value of the AML method. Then if it is 0, val is set to 0 and if it is 1, val is set to 1. Don't you mean to invert val? If so, this should be sufficient: /* Invert the radio kill switch for the user. */ sc->radio_switch_state = !val; -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4625A70C.1000506>