On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:30:05AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > The idea is sound, but it would be probably cleaner to do it only on those > thinkpads which need it. I don't like the idea of handling duplicate > notifications, and the logic depends entirely on nothing messing with the > mixer state behind our backs, I'd prefer to rely on it just when strictly > required. In this case the notification is purely at the ALSA level, so there's no harm caused by duplicate notifications. > Also, UCMS is called for a number of reasons. It would be best to filter > based on the UCMS parameter before doing an expensive PC CMOS RAM read or EC > read. We will be dealing with a finite number of thinkpads anyway. Passing the parameter is... difficult. That would involve rather more surgery to the ACPI core, since the parameters are core-internal objects at this point. It's an obvious feature though, so I'll look into it some more. > On the same note, we need to be called *after* the UCMS method completes, > otherwise, we will have to schedule delayed work. I didn't study your ACPI > patch enough to know whether this happens, but that detail is not clear from > the description. The call is made after executing the original method, yes. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
