On Monday, January 06, 2014 10:07:35 PM Lan Tianyu wrote: > On 01/04/2014 07:12 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:01:11PM -0200, Leandro Dorileo wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:37:57PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >>> The aml method _BIX of NEC LZ750/LS returns a broken package which > >>> skip the first member "Revision" according ACPI 5.0 spec Table 10-234. > >>> > >>> This patch is to add a quirk for this machine to skip member "Revision" > >>> during parsing _BIX returned package. > >>> > >>> Reported-and-tested-by: Francisco Castro <fcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 > >>> Cc: 3.8+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/acpi/battery.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/battery.c b/drivers/acpi/battery.c > >>> index fbf1ace..3d64a87 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/battery.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/battery.c > >>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@xxxxxxx>"); > >>> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ACPI Battery Driver"); > >>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > >>> > >>> +static int battery_bix_broken_package; > >>> static unsigned int cache_time = 1000; > >>> module_param(cache_time, uint, 0644); > >>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(cache_time, "cache time in milliseconds"); > >>> @@ -416,7 +417,12 @@ static int acpi_battery_get_info(struct acpi_battery *battery) > >>> ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "Evaluating %s", name)); > >>> return -ENODEV; > >>> } > >>> - if (test_bit(ACPI_BATTERY_XINFO_PRESENT, &battery->flags)) > >>> + > >>> + if (battery_bix_broken_package) > >>> + result = extract_package(battery, buffer.pointer, > >>> + extended_info_offsets + 1, > >>> + ARRAY_SIZE(extended_info_offsets) - 1); > >>> + else if (test_bit(ACPI_BATTERY_XINFO_PRESENT, &battery->flags)) > >>> result = extract_package(battery, buffer.pointer, > >>> extended_info_offsets, > >>> ARRAY_SIZE(extended_info_offsets)); > >>> @@ -754,6 +760,24 @@ static int battery_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, > >>> return 0; > >>> } > >>> > >>> +static int battery_bix_package_quirk(const struct dmi_system_id *id) > >>> +{ > >>> + battery_bix_broken_package = 1; > >>> + return 0; > >>> +} > >>> + > >> > >> > >> Do you really need this callback? Why don't you just do: > >> > >> if (dmi_check_system(bat_dmi_table)) > >> battery_bix_broken_package = 1; > >> > > > > Callback would be useful if we were to print the DMI data of the match, > > otherwise not so much. > > > > Hi Leandro & Dmitry: > Thanks for your review. I select to callback mode as it's convenient to > add a new quirk for other machines if need. This Just likes what we have > done for the other ACPI drivers(E,G ac, processor_idle, video, thermal > and so on.). We can switch to callbacks when we actually need them. Please keep things as simple as reasonably possible. Thanks! -- 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
