On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 15:49 +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 13:40 +0100, Holger Macht wrote:
> > When trying to get the acpi_handle from an acpi_buffer, pass
> > ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT instead of NULL to acpi_get_handle(). This fixes the
> > detection of dock dependent bays.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <hmacht@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > index 3fac011..d9b9143 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -609,7 +609,8 @@ acpi_bus_get_ejd(acpi_handle handle, acpi_handle *ejd)
> > status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "_EJD", NULL, &buffer);
> > if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> > obj = buffer.pointer;
> > - status = acpi_get_handle(NULL, obj->string.pointer, ejd);
> > + status = acpi_get_handle(ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT, obj->string.pointer,
> > + ejd);
> > kfree(buffer.pointer);
> > }
> > return status;
> >
>
> I can verify that acpi_bus_get_ejd is totally useless without that
> patch.
I mean I have verified and can confirm that..
> If "status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "_EJD", NULL, &buffer);"
> succeeds (and AE_NOT_FOUND is not returned), the function will return
> AE_BAD_PARAMETER, because NULL never makes sense as first argument of
> acpi_get_handle:
> status = acpi_get_handle(NULL, obj->string.pointer, ejd);
>
> I can also verify that the correct handle is evaluated with this patch
> on a recent ThinkPad, otherwise not.
Same here.
> Please add it, looks like a typo.
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
