Hi!
> > In fact it looks quite weird that one blink per 5 seconds can break the
> > keyboard, in fact.
>
> Not wierd at all. The driver uses panic_blink - something that we expect
> to work after panic. It rapidly polls KBC status register to detect when
Aha. Can we get rid of that driver? It i
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 20:24, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
> > No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONFIG_BLINK on, that is
> > one blink
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
> No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONFIG_BLINK on, that is
> one blink per 5 seconds or something.
> We should rename CONFIG_BLINK to
>
Hi!
> > * It breaks keyboards. Yes, we are talking about maybe-broken i8042s,
> > but it still breaks thinkpads at least.
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
No, it was not. I still saw the problems with CONF
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> * It breaks keyboards. Yes, we are talking about maybe-broken i8042s,
> but it still breaks thinkpads at least.
Hi Pavel,
this has probably been already solved by proper throttling - see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/22
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubs
Hi!
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
>
> As the blink module was initially written for kdump, and as the kernel
> is relocatable on lots of a
Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-18 06:26]:
+static int blink = 0;
no need to init to 0.
Does it harm?
It adds space to the binary file in some cases and it is kernel
convention not to init statics to NULL or 0 since that is already
guaranteed for them.
+m
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-18 06:26]:
> > +static int blink = 0;
>
> no need to init to 0.
Does it harm?
> > +module_param(blink, bool, S_IRUGO);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(blink, "Enable blinking (without that, the module does
> > nothing)\n");
>
> unneeded "\n"
Fixed. Please use
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:39:04 +0200 Bernhard Walle wrote:
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
>
> As the blink module was initially written for k
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 10:39 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> This patch in the blink driver changes the module to only blink when
> the parameter 'blink' is set to true. This is to allow the module to
> be compiled in the kernel and not as module.
it also has a 1000Hz timer in it... which sucks pow
10 matches
Mail list logo
