Re: [PATCH] PCI/ACPI: move _OSC code to pci_root.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* 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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux