On Saturday 27 May 2017 15:33:14 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 May 2017 15:07:09 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Remove
> >> > also reserved member as it does not have any defined meaning or
> >> > type yet.
> >> >
> >> > - pr_info("\treserved: %02X\n", g->reserved);
> >>
> >> Do we need this? Commit message doesn't clarify.
> >
> > I wrote to commit message that reserved does not have defined
> > meaning nor type. Also reserved overlap with object_id[1] so for
> > non-event should not be print at all. And as it is reserved, I
> > removed it.
>
> Oh, indeed.
>
> >> > + pr_info("\tobject_id: %c%c\n", g->object_id[0],
> >> > g->object_id[1]);
> >>
> >> If this can still contain non-printable characters the %*pE can
> >> help instead.
> >
> > Those are printable ASCII. object_id contains two characters which
> > are suffix for ACPI method.
> >
> > Problem was only for events when we tried to print notify_id as
> > object_id. notify_id is binary and overlaps with object_id.
>
> Okay, got it. But on your opinion does it make sense to do
>
> pr_info("\tobject_id: %2pE\n", g->object_id);
>
> instead?
>
> For ASCII it will go as is previously, otherwise escaping would be
> done.
Both is OK for me. Do you want to send a new patch with %2pE?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
