* Andrew Patterson <andrew.patterson@xxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 14:57 +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> > + /* Need to ignore the bit0 in result code */
> > + errors = *((u32 *)out_obj->buffer.pointer) & ~(1 << 0);
> > + if (errors) {
> > + if (errors & OSC_REQUEST_ERROR)
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "_OSC request fails\n");
> > + if (errors & OSC_INVALID_UUID_ERROR)
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "_OSC invalid UUID\n");
> > + if (errors & OSC_INVALID_REVISION_ERROR)
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "_OSC invalid revision\n");
> > + if (errors & OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR) {
> > + if (capbuf[OSC_QUERY_TYPE] & OSC_QUERY_ENABLE)
> > + goto out_success;
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "_OSC FW not grant req. control\n");
>
> Can this be worded better? Perhaps "Firmware would not grant requested
> _OSC control"? I know this is not your code, but maybe we can fix this
> now.
Trying not to bike shed, but if you're going to change the
wording, I'd prefer to see "Firmware did not..." vs "Firmware
would not..."
Thanks.
/ac
--
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
