On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:21:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Radio LED detection method implemented in commit 4f62568c1fcf > >> > ("fujitsu-laptop: Support radio LED") turned out to be incorrect as it > >> > causes a radio LED to be erroneously detected on a Fujitsu Lifebook E751 > >> > which has a slide switch (and thus no radio LED). Use bit 17 of > >> > flags_supported (the value returned by method S000 of ACPI device > >> > FUJ02E3) to determine whether a radio LED is present as it seems to be a > >> > more reliable indicator, based on comparing DSDT tables of four Fujitsu > >> > Lifebook models (E744, E751, S7110, S8420). > >> > > >> > >> Pushed to my review and testing queue, thanks! > > > > I forgot that this patch can also be tagged with: > > > > Fixes: 4f62568c1fcf ("fujitsu-laptop: Support radio LED") > > Added. > > Do you consider this an important fix? We are at -rc7 now, I'm not > sure it's so critical. Tell me if you consider otherwise. I agree - from my perspective I wouldn't have thought it so critical as to push it out this late in the development cycle. It's not a regression as such and is largely cosmetic. Others may argue differently though. BTW, it looks like you may have missed my Reviewed-by tag on this patch, sent on 25 Oct. There was also a Tested-by added by Heinrich Siebmanns on the same day: Reviewed-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Heinrich Siebmanns <harv@xxxxxx> Or perhaps such peripheral tags aren't carried forward on patches like this, in which case it's a moot point. Regards jonathan