[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337884020.2718.89.camel@lorien2>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:27:00 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc: shuahkhan@...il.com, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, liuj97@...il.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] ACPI: Set hotplug _OST support bit to _OSC
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 20:25 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> When ACPI_HOTPLUG_OST is defined, set hotplug _OST support bit
> OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT to indicate that the OS supports hotplug
> _OST by calling the platform-wide ACPI Operating System Capabilities
> (_OSC).
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 4 ++++
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> index 3188da3..3d4fc7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> @@ -548,6 +548,10 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_support(void)
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_TYPE] |= OSC_SB_PPC_OST_SUPPORT;
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef ACPI_HOTPLUG_OST
> + capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_TYPE] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
> +#endif
Why isn't firmware response to _OSC checked to make sure firmware also
supports _OST? My general comments about compile time switch that is
enabled only a few cases _OST Ejection/Insertion is intended to be used
are applicable here.
-- Shuah
> +
> if (!ghes_disable)
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_TYPE] |= OSC_SB_APEI_SUPPORT;
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_get_handle(NULL, "\\_SB", &handle)))
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists