> -----Original Message----- > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 3:50 PM > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver- > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx; > rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose > embedded WMI MOF metadata > > On Wednesday 07 June 2017 22:23:08 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:39 PM > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver- > > > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > luto@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] > > > platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF > > > metadata > > > > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 15:56:21 Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 13:46:16 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > 2) On my system when you expand the arguments for "void DoBFn" > > > > > the source doesn't describe individual arguments like you do. > > > > > Again this might not matter to MOF parsing tools but wanted to > > > > > let you know in case it does. > > > > > > > > I know, this part is missing. Order of arguments are only in ID > > > > qualifier and not sorted + in/out de-duplicated. > > > > > > Implemented! Now arguments are correctly placed based on ID > > > qualifier. > > > > I think it's still off a little though. > > > > What I'm getting back now from bmf2mof is: > > void DoBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), out] BDat Data); > > > > Whereas source puts Description as the last argument: > > void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data); > > In BMOF from my Latitude E6440 there are specified two parameters with > index 0. One with qualifiers ("in", Description("Fn buf")) and one with > ("out", Description("Fn buf")). I think you have similar/same data in > BMOF. > > In my bmf2mof I just combined those two parameters into one (when name, > type and index matches) and concatenate also qualifiers with removing > duplicates. > > Do not know what is correct way, but I think qualifiers are just > unordered set. MS decompiler probably put "in" and "out" qualifiers > before any other for better readability. Have you tried to run it through mofcomp.exe and then decompile again with bmf2mof? As long as it's coming out the same you're probably right. > > > > > > source: > > > > > void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data); > > > > > > > > > > bmf2mof: > > > > > void doBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data, [out, > > > > > Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data); > > > > > > -- > > > Pali Rohár > > > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx > > -- > Pali Rohár > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
