On Friday, July 12, 2013 04:05:08 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:01:30AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp.h > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp.h > > @@ -160,7 +160,6 @@ struct acpiphp_attention_info > > > > /* slot flags */ > > > > -#define SLOT_POWEREDON (0x00000001) > > #define SLOT_ENABLED (0x00000002) > > #define SLOT_MULTIFUNCTION (0x00000004) > > > > @@ -168,11 +167,7 @@ struct acpiphp_attention_info > > > > #define FUNC_HAS_STA (0x00000001) > > #define FUNC_HAS_EJ0 (0x00000002) > > -#define FUNC_HAS_PS0 (0x00000010) > > -#define FUNC_HAS_PS1 (0x00000020) > > -#define FUNC_HAS_PS2 (0x00000040) > > -#define FUNC_HAS_PS3 (0x00000080) > > -#define FUNC_HAS_DCK (0x00000100) > > +#define FUNC_HAS_DCK (0x00000003) > > These are flags not enum so the above wants to be > > #define FUNC_HAS_DCK (0x00000004) Yeah, obviously. I guess it goes against the natural tendency to assign numbers to things sequentially, so I generally prefer the (1U << n) notation. :-) > otherwise we accidentally match checks like: > > /* install notify handler */ > if (!(newfunc->flags & FUNC_HAS_DCK)) { > ... Yup. Thanks for spotting that! 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