Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:02:36 -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: <4625601C.9000201@root.org> In-Reply-To: <6eb82e0704171645n5f7b2ca6h41b41016cdafad24@mail.gmail.com> References: <6eb82e0704171645n5f7b2ca6h41b41016cdafad24@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4625601C.9000201>