ACPICA release 20101013 linuxized patches
Hi, Len
ACPICA release 20101013 linuxized patches attached.
There is a small conflict for PATCH 5 between test and acpica branches, so I made 2 mbox files for each branch to apply, you choose it.
acpica-v20101013-on_top_of_test_branch.mbox applied cleanly on top of your linux-acpi-2.6/test branch.
acpica-v20101013-on_top_of_acpica_branch.mbox applied cleanly on top of your linux-acpi-2.6/acpica branch.
Build/Tested on my 32/64 bit machines, both work OK.
[PATCH 1/6] ACPICA: Comment update; no functional change
[PATCH 2/6] ACPICA: Change type of _TZ from ThermalZone to Device [PATCH 3/6] ACPICA: Eliminate duplicate code in acpi_ut_execute_* functions [PATCH 4/6] ACPICA: Add Vista SP2 to supported _OSI strings [PATCH 5/6] ACPICA: Clear PCIEXP_WAKE_STS when clearing ACPI events [PATCH 6/6] ACPICA: Update version to 20101013
Lin Ming
Len Brown
reviewerpatch 5 doesn't look quite right,
because it leaves both
#define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */
and
#define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */
in aclocal.h
If we're going to re-name what the original patch did, then we should finsh the job and delete the original name, yes?
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Quoted 11 lines · Len Brown
patch 5 doesn't look quite right,
because it leaves both#define
ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS0x4000/* ACPI 3.0 */
and
#defineACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE0x4000/* ACPI 3.0 */in
aclocal.hIf we're going to re-name what the original patch did, then we should finsh the job and delete the original name, yes?
No, we don't re-name anything.
#define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */ #define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */
These are the bit positions for the status and enable registers.
Colin's original patch mis-used ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE which should be ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS, but it didn't cause any problem because they have the same value 0x4000.
Bob has corrected it, see comment #1 at
http://www.acpica.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=880
Lin Ming
Quoted 4 lines
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center