On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 07:48:28PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:50:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > No, I was. I hadn't seen the patch "hwmon: (acpi_power_meter) Cleanup > > > and optimizations" in your hwmon-staging tree. This indeed solves my > > > above concern. > > > > Uh, sorry, I forgot about it too. On the other side I missed your Ack for it ... > > Did you? > > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2012-June/036556.html > Hi Jean, when I said "missed", I did not mean "I did not get your Ack", I meant "I overlooked it". Which is why the patch was still in my -staging tree and not in -next. Thanks, Guenter > > (...) > > "real" as in actual limits as provided and/or determined by ACPI. Anyway, I may > > have been wrong with that, as apparently acpi_evaluate_integer() is not used to > > validate a value, but to set it (or both ?). > > I think it can be used to both retrieve or set an integer value using > appropriate ACPI methods. > > > -- > Jean Delvare > _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
