On Monday, August 02, 2010, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > (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? Yes, we can, but that's going to make the next patches slightly less readable. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
