On 26.08.2014 00:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
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.
Yes you are right, but this emulator is only for debugging/development
purposes and goes with clear statement "DANGER to use on production
kernel", like APEI error injection feature.
IMO, this emulator would help with:
1. testing and developing AML methods
2. working on ACPI subsystems that need GPIO-signaled events without
GPIO h/w
Regards,
Tomasz
--
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
