>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:55, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c >>> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static void tboot_copy_fadt(const struct acpi_table_fadt > *fadt) >>> offsetof(struct acpi_table_facs, firmware_waking_vector); >>> } >>> >>> -static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control) >>> +static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control, >>> + u8 extended) >> >> I don't see why this couldn't remain "bool" - the only complain was >> that ACPI CA shouldn't use it. > > I changed it, in order to keep the prototypes consistent. > Having the function pointer be defined with one signature in the > acpica code, and another in the os implementation seems like a > maintenance problem. Of course the first patch would need adjustments too: The function pointer would also want to use bool then. Again - it's only the ACPI CA code that wants to get away without using bool/true/false. Jan -- 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
