[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOvdn6UyPDBLPg5Q-RW-VZp5FBkj+qDWrNZV-HEY3oj05CovrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:55:43 -0400
From: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>,
Gang Wei <gang.wei@...el.com>,
tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"Rafaell J . Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static void tboot_copy_fadt(const struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt)
>> offsetof(struct acpi_table_facs, firmware_waking_vector);
>> }
>>
>> -static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control)
>> +static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control,
>> + u8 extended)
>
> I don't see why this couldn't remain "bool" - the only complain was
> that ACPI CA shouldn't use it.
>
> Jan
I changed it, in order to keep the prototypes consistent.
Having the function pointer be defined with one signature in the
acpica code, and another in the os implementation seems like a
maintenance problem.
Ben
>
> --
> 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/
--
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