Sorry for delayed reply. > >>> On 12.03.13 at 01:59, "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > +#include <linux/acpi.h> > > > > This line shouldn't appear in ACPICA codes (drivers/acpi/acpica). > > Please try to declare OSL interfaces via include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h. > > I'm sorry, but why am I not permitted to follow code that's already there: > - hwsleep.c already includes linux/acpi.h > - acpi_os_set_prepare_sleep() and acpi_os_prepare_sleep() are > both declared/stubbed out in linux/acpi.h > > I'm particularly not intending to do cleanup work on ACPICA just so that I can > subsequently fix incomplete code. > > Rafael, with that in mind, your request to submit the ACPICA changes > separately is impossible: The hook functions just can't have a declaration in the > non-Linux ACPI headers (or else they wouldn't currently live in linux/acpi.h). > Hence breaking up the patch in the way you asked me to will not even compile > without first cleaning up the existing code. And again - I'm sorry, no, that's not > something I was looking forward to do. Yes, you can try to use codes already there, but you still can find a way not introducing a new inclusion of <linux/acpi.h> in an ACPICA file. Sorry for the inconvenience. > >> > + status = acpi_os_prepare_sleep(sleep_state, acpi_gbl_sleep_type_a, > >> > + acpi_gbl_sleep_type_b, true); > > > > bool is not used in ACPICA, please try u8 instead. > > Can do, but again - why am I not permitted to follow what's already there? > acglobal.h has > > bool ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(acpi_gbl_enable_aml_debug_object, FALSE); ACPICA is a portable ACPI implementation, where there might be users using compilers not compatible with c99. This difference is there for another reason: It is exported as a sysfs entry, it could not be converted back to u8 without introducing new warnings during the current kernel compilation process. At least for now, it is a committed difference. Or you could wait until the "bool" portable layer to be implemented in the ACPICA. > The more that the declaration, as pointed out above, lives in linux/acpi.h (and > did so even _before_ this patch), i.e. isn't an ACPICA one. > > >> > status = acpi_os_prepare_sleep(sleep_state, pm1a_control, > >> > - pm1b_control); > >> > + pm1b_control, false); > > > > Likewise. > > > >> > -acpi_status acpi_os_prepare_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, > >> > - u32 pm1b_control) > >> > +acpi_status acpi_os_prepare_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 val_a, u32 val_b, > >> > + bool extended) > > > > Is this an ACPICA OSL interface? Then it should not include bool parameter. > > Returning the question: Given the current placement of declarations, it isn't. > But if the current layout is wrong, than that needs fixing first. Which in turn > likely means that the inconsistency will continue to persist for the next (or the > next few) kernel version(s). Yes, we may fix this ASAP. Thanks -Lv -- 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
