On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:05:28AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:29:41PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:00:20AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > ... > > > >> I want to do it in separate steps, I'd just like to see cmd number 100 > >> added to the existing __nd_ioctl and acpi_nfit_ctl routines. That > > > > Why? > > Because there's no need for the intel vs passthru distinction, it's > just yet another command. Yes and no. The way the two marshal their arguments in prep for the copy in/copy out is different and are not compatible. Also, the existing upstream acpi_nfit_ctl does multiple things that we don't want done in the "semi" passthru case. To accomodate these differences, I implemented in separate functions. I can merge the functions together, it will not be clean. This approach also creates testing issues I didn't have previously. I was confident w/ code inspection that I wasn't breaking the existing usage case. I will need your help in testing on hardware that I don't have access to. You expressed a desire to depricate the existing ioctl commands and transition to the semi passthru structure. What do you anticipate that code looking like? > > >> plus quibbling about the name "ND_CMD_PASSTHRU". Given the plans to > >> eventually replace the existing commands we can call it something like > >> 'ND_DSM_GENERIC'. > > > > > > No problem. I'll change the name for ndn_passthru_pkg in a similar fashion. > > > > > > Question: Are you planning to add other CMDs to the IOCTL in the future? > > (eg. ones not directly related to calling _dsm?) > > > > Or, is the ultimate goal to have an IOCTL that supports > > only the generic DSM call? > > I'm not ruling out the possibility that there may be a non-DSM command > in the future, but I don't see any need for that on the horizon. Why > would it matter? Neither the existing upstream apci_nfit_ctl nor the semi pass thru marshal arguments in a traditional straight forward manner. So likely the marshaling code for any new commands would be different. Also, since it doesn't call DSM it wouldn't be doing the evaluate dsm. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett-Packard Enterprise ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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
