Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 12:36:37 am Shaohua Li wrote:
Add an API to execute _OSC. A lot of devices can have this method, so add a
generic API.
+ out_obj = context->ret.pointer;
+ if (out_obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "_OSC evaluation returned wrong type\n");
+ status = AE_TYPE;
+ goto out_kfree;
+ }
+ /* 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 failed\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 (((u32 *)context->cap.pointer)[OSC_QUERY_TYPE]
+ & OSC_QUERY_ENABLE)
+ goto out_success;
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG
+ "Firmware did not grant requested _OSC control\n");
On all these printks, it would be very useful to have some indication
of what the OS requested and which specific _OSC method we executed,
e.g., an ACPI device name or a namespace path.
I think the following printk is confusing and should be removed.
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG
+ "Firmware did not grant requested _OSC control\n");
People might think something wrong is happening on OS or firmware.
Actually I had been asked about this message several times.
Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
--
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
