On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:17 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:04 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 19:53:39 +0100,
> > Ayman Bagabas wrote:
> > > + if (code == 0x80) {
> > > + acpi_status status;
> > > + acpi_handle handle;
> > > + unsigned long long result;
> > > + union acpi_object args[1];
> > > + struct acpi_object_list arg_list = {
> > > + .pointer = args,
> > > + .count = ARRAY_SIZE(args),
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + args[0].type = ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER;
> > > + args[0].integer.value = 0;
> > > +
> > > + status = acpi_get_handle(NULL, "\\WMI0", &handle);
> > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > > + dev_err(&wdev->dev, "Unable to get ACPI
> > > handle\n");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(NULL, "WQ00",
> > > &arg_list, &result);
> >
> > I guess you need to pass handle here? In the earlier version, you
> > passed \\WMI0.WQ00, so it worked with NULL handle. But now it's no
> > longer so...
>
> I think in this case we don't need to have a separate call to get
> handle and try to get integer directly. In either we will have an
> error case if method / namespace / etc is not found.
Agree.
>
> > Other than that, it looks OK to me.
> > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
Thanks.
> >
> > But, you don't need to rush too much. Instead, better to test your
> > own patches and make sure that they really work before submitting
> > the
> > final version.
>
> Yes, I will wait couple of days for v10 in hope it will be tested
> carefully.
You're right, I will test it more and make sure everything work as
expected.
>
