On Thursday, August 28, 2014 01:19:48 PM Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> 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
OK
And why does that belong to the kernel source tree and not to an ACPI/UEFI
test suite?
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
