[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKT61h95dJjXUx9cp5kCqOvsEMQBbYZqhnoUfQbf1bJqVKi7jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:35:40 +0800
From: Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Vincent Wan <Vincent.Wan@....com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ray.Huang@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: i8042: add quirk to implement i8042 detect for AMD
2015-10-16 16:58 GMT+08:00 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:27:00AM -0400, Vincent Wan wrote:
>> Detecting platform supports i8042 or not, AMD resorted to
>> BIOS's FADT i8042 flag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Wan <Vincent.Wan@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> /*
>> @@ -1047,6 +1048,11 @@ static int __init i8042_platform_init(void)
>> /* Just return if pre-detection shows no i8042 controller exist */
>> if (!x86_platform.i8042_detect())
>> return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
>
> Why the vendor check if you're accessing a bit defined in the ACPI spec?
>From intel's 'x86_platform.i8042_detect' implementation, I doubt if
their BIOS is providing this i8024 flag.
So I have to implement my codes carefully.
>
>> + if (!(acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_8042))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
---
Vincent Wan(Zongshun)
www.mcuos.com
--
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