On Thursday, August 21, 2014 04:39:46 PM Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> On 21.08.2014 12:45, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:58:20PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
[cut]
> >> +
> >> +static int gpio_evt_trigger(void *data, u64 val)
> >> +{
> >> + struct gpio_pin_data *pin_data = (struct gpio_pin_data *)data;
> >> + int pin = pin_data->pin;
> >> +
> >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(pin_data->handle, NULL,
> >> + pin <= 255 ? 0 : pin)))
> >> + pr_err(PREFIX "evaluating event method failed\n");
> >
> > acpi_execute_simple_method() passes one argument to the method. You
> > can't use it with _Lxx or _Exx which don't expect any arguments.
> > Otherwise you get this:
> >
> > [ 122.258191] ACPI: \_SB_.GPO2._E12: Excess arguments - Caller passed 1, method requires 0 (20140724/nsarguments-263)
> Right, I will fix it.
OK, so here's my concern.
If AML does any kind of tracking of state in _Exx/_Lxx, you'll likely totally
confuse it by calling those things at random.
I'm not sure I'm seeing a compelling reason to put this thing into the tree
for this reason.
Rafael
--
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
