[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07af328e-d703-fd80-20be-725f00e54812@hpe.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:52:48 -0400
From: Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
CC: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit
On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com> wrote:
>> The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it never
>> would've worked because we weren't setting the
>> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.
>
> Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing a
> backport or taking this back to a -stable branch. Something like:
>
> Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications
>
> Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
> support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to gate
> notification delivery.
While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to explicitly check
for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT? I'm thinking about some time
in the future when there might be more than one event.
-- ljk
>
> Fixes: 209851649dc4 ("acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add")
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-nvdimm mailing list
> Linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists