(2010/07/31 7:24), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>
> There is no reason why acpi_pci_run_osc() should use a separate
> argument to return the _OSC result, since there is a place for it
> in the buffer passed via capbuf, as none of the callers needs to
> preserve the original contents of that buffer, so drop the third
> argument of acpi_pci_run_osc() and modify the callers accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> ---
I think this change is not significant for later patches.
Can we skip?
Thanks,
H.Seto
> drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> @@ -206,8 +206,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_bridge_scan(struct
>
> static u8 pci_osc_uuid_str[] = "33DB4D5B-1FF7-401C-9657-7441C03DD766";
>
> -static acpi_status acpi_pci_run_osc(acpi_handle handle,
> - const u32 *capbuf, u32 *retval)
> +static acpi_status acpi_pci_run_osc(acpi_handle handle, u32 *capbuf)
> {
> struct acpi_osc_context context = {
> .uuid_str = pci_osc_uuid_str,
> @@ -219,7 +218,7 @@ static acpi_status acpi_pci_run_osc(acpi
>
> status = acpi_run_osc(handle, &context);
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> - *retval = *((u32 *)(context.ret.pointer + 8));
> + capbuf[OSC_CONTROL_TYPE] = ((u32 *)context.ret.pointer)[2];
> kfree(context.ret.pointer);
> }
> return status;
> @@ -228,7 +227,7 @@ static acpi_status acpi_pci_run_osc(acpi
> static acpi_status acpi_pci_query_osc(struct acpi_pci_root *root, u32 flags)
> {
> acpi_status status;
> - u32 support_set, result, capbuf[3];
> + u32 support_set, capbuf[3];
>
> /* do _OSC query for all possible controls */
> support_set = root->osc_support_set | (flags & OSC_PCI_SUPPORT_MASKS);
> @@ -236,10 +235,10 @@ static acpi_status acpi_pci_query_osc(st
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_TYPE] = support_set;
> capbuf[OSC_CONTROL_TYPE] = OSC_PCI_CONTROL_MASKS;
>
> - status = acpi_pci_run_osc(root->device->handle, capbuf, &result);
> + status = acpi_pci_run_osc(root->device->handle, capbuf);
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> root->osc_support_set = support_set;
> - root->osc_control_qry = result;
> + root->osc_control_qry = capbuf[OSC_CONTROL_TYPE];
> root->osc_queried = 1;
> }
> return status;
> @@ -373,7 +372,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_get_pci_dev);
> acpi_status acpi_pci_osc_control_set(acpi_handle handle, u32 flags)
> {
> acpi_status status;
> - u32 control_req, result, capbuf[3];
> + u32 control_req, capbuf[3];
> acpi_handle tmp;
> struct acpi_pci_root *root;
>
> @@ -410,9 +409,9 @@ acpi_status acpi_pci_osc_control_set(acp
> capbuf[OSC_QUERY_TYPE] = 0;
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_TYPE] = root->osc_support_set;
> capbuf[OSC_CONTROL_TYPE] = root->osc_control_set | control_req;
> - status = acpi_pci_run_osc(handle, capbuf, &result);
> + status = acpi_pci_run_osc(handle, capbuf);
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> - root->osc_control_set = result;
> + root->osc_control_set = capbuf[OSC_CONTROL_TYPE];
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&osc_lock);
> return status;
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
