On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Verma, Vishal L <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 12:54 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hpe.c >> om> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote: >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@int >> > > el.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it >> > > > never >> > > > would've worked because we weren't setting the >> > > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver. >> > > >> > > Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing >> > > a >> > > backport or taking this back to a -stable branch. Something like: >> > > >> > > Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications >> > > >> > > Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added >> > > support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the >> > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to >> > > gate >> > > notification delivery. >> > >> > While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to >> > explicitly check >> > for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT? I'm thinking about >> > some time >> > in the future when there might be more than one event. >> >> Yes, good idea. > > Sounds good, part of the same patch or separately? Separate. In general, if you would write the word "also" in a patch description, that's an indication to make a separate patch. -- 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
