On Friday 09 June 2017 23:51:32 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 09 June 2017 17:46:12 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > -----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. > > Yes, bmf2mof+mofcomp.exe+bmf2mof gives same output as just bmf2mof. I changed order for printing qualifiers in bmf2mof. "in" and "out" are now printed before all others. So you should see now same output. > > > > > > > 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 -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
