Re: [PATCH 1/8] rfkill: Documentation and style fixes

[JoÃo Paulo Rechi Vita]

On 19 January 2016 at 15:11, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  /**
>>   * rfkill_resume_polling(struct rfkill *rfkill)
>>   *
>> - * Pause polling -- say transmitter is off for other reasons.
>> + * Resume polling previously paused with rfkill_pause_polling.
>>   * NOTE: not necessary for suspend/resume -- in that case the
>> - * core stops polling anyway
>> + * core restarts polling anyway, even if was explicitly paused
>> + * before suspending.
>>   */
>
> If this is true, that's a bug, no? Drivers would call pause/resume when
> their status changes, and shouldn't be required to check status at
> resume time?
>

I did not dive too much into the logic here, but
rfkill_resume_polling() is called unconditionally on rfkill_resume(),
so it seems that if a driver call rfkill_pause_polling() before
suspend, on resume polling will be "un-paused". That indeed looks
strange.

--
JoÃo Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita