On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 05:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:57:47PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > ACPI OEM ID / OEM Table ID / Revision can be used to identify
> > a platform based on ACPI firmware info. acpi_blacklisted(),
> > intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists(), and some other funcs,
> > have been using similar check to detect a list of platforms
> > that require special handlings.
> >
> > Move the platform check in acpi_blacklisted() to a new common
> > utility function, acpi_match_oemlist(), so that other drivers
> > do not have to implement their own version.
> >
> > There is no change in functionality.
:
> > /*
> > * POLICY: If *anything* doesn't work, put it on the blacklist.
> > * If they are critical errors, mark it critical, and
> > abort driver load.
> > */
> > -static struct acpi_blacklist_item acpi_blacklist[] __initdata = {
> > +static struct acpi_oemlist acpi_blacklist[] __initdata = {
>
> All that wasted energy to try to explain to you that "oemlist" is
> wrong and that whole rename is pointless, went for nothing.
>
> So NAK.
Well, we did talk a lot about your suggested name, "acpi_blacklist",
and I explained that it did not work since it'd be used for both black
and white-list. We've agreed on that.
You then suggested it's "platform", not "OEM". Since this is an ACPI
structure defined in "acpi.h", its terminology generally follows ACPI
spec, which I did.
I understand that you feel strongly against "OEM" (sorry about that).
How about "acpi_platform_list"? Does it work for you?
Thanks,
-Toshi
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
