[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jiR80vFxLUN-L7hcChb8m6gasf77TMV6onOprSh_CVHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 03:07:22 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, elliott@....com,
jmoyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, krivenok.dmitry@...il.com,
linda.knippers@....com, Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Lv <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] acpica: Correct parameter type to acpi_evaluate_dsm
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com> wrote:
> The ACPI spec speicifies that arguments "Revision ID" and
> "Function Index" to a _DSM are type "Integer." Type Integers
> are 64 bit quantities.
>
> The function evaluate_dsm specifies these types as simple "int"
> which are 32 bits. Correct type passed to acpi_evaluate_dsm
> and its callers and derived callers to pass correct type.
>
> acpi_check_dsm and acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed had similar issue
> and were corrected as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>
The changes look OK to me, but this is not ACPICA material.
Please change the subject to something like "ACPI / utils: Fix
acpi_evaluate_dsm() argument type".
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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