On Monday, June 17, 2013 10:37:10 PM Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 00:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > > > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:38 PM Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Drivers may need to make policy decisions based on the OS that the firmware > > > believes it's interacting with. ACPI firmware will make a series of _OSI > > > calls, starting from the oldest OS version they support and ending with the > > > most recent. Add a function to return the last successful call so that > > > drivers know what the firmware's expecting. > > > > > > Based on a patch by Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Bob (CCed) would prefer us to access acpi_gbl_osi_data directly instead of > > adding the wrapper to ACPICA. He also thinks that the symbol definitions > > should go into include/acpi/actypes.h rather than into acpixf.h. > > > > Then, the only ACPICA change would be to move the symbols and we can > > add a Linux-specific patch on top of that adding the acpi_gbl_osi_data > > wrapper. > > That sounds good to me. Do you want to respin that, or should I send an > updated set? That one should be fine, no need to respin [1/3] and [3/3]. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
