On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the >> synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC >> work. That can be discussed later though, the one-liner is simple, and >> it works. > > So, let's assume that the one-liner goes into 3.11 and work further with that > assumption. > > How would you address the sythetic case (on top of the one-liner)? I would write and read two values instead of one. The code is trying to check if _BQC is always returning the maximum, and if you try with two values you can be absolutely certain if that's happening or not; it doesn't even matter which values you choose. Even in the synthetic case that only has two values the check would work correctly and detect that _BQC works correctly (or not). In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the same value, and the code above will find that out, regardless of which values are tested. For my particular machine though, I think it's more interesting to find out why _BCM is failing before _DOS, and why efaa14c made it work. If that is actually the case. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
