On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 06:08:57PM +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Hi Linus, > >>>> > >>>> please pull from: > >>>> > >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git release > >>>> > >>> ;.. > >>>> Shaohua Li (3): > >>>> ? ? ?ACPI: Add a generic API for _OSC -v2 > >>>> ? ? ?ACPI: cleanup pci_root _OSC code. > >>>> ? ? ?ACPI: Add platform-wide _OSC support. > >>> it seems these three patches broke the _OSC on my intel new systems. > >>> > >>> revert them fix the problem with AER and pciehp and etc > >> can you give more details? I just cleaned up the _OSC code for AER and > >> pciehp, no function changes. > > > > Famous last words ;-) > > > > Yinghai, i suspect Shaohua needs the kind of info you'd need if you tried to > > fix it: acpidump, before/after debug boot log, a description of what goes bad, > > etc. > > the so called clean up, change the ret length checking. > > - if (!output.length) > - return AE_NULL_OBJECT; > - > > + /* return buffer should have the same length as cap buffer */ > + if (context->ret.length != context->cap.length) > + return AE_NULL_OBJECT; Wield BIOS. ACPI spec does mention the return buffer have the same length. Does changing the check back make the issue go away? Thanks, Shaohua -- 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
