Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:55:42 +0800 From: "Rong-en Fan" <grafan@gmail.com> To: acpi@freebsd.org, mobile@freebsd.org Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: acpi_ibm(4): new radio kill switch (readonly) sysctl Message-ID: <6eb82e0704172055l5bddca81t5b7e9e45a297a839@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4625601C.9000201@root.org> References: <6eb82e0704171645n5f7b2ca6h41b41016cdafad24@mail.gmail.com> <4625601C.9000201@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Thanks, Rong-En Fan > > -- > Nate >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6eb82e0704172055l5bddca81t5b7e9e45a297a839>