Return-Path: Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:20:58 -0700 From: Jerry Hoemann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] acpica: Correct parameter type to acpi_evaluate_dsm Message-ID: <20151214032058.GA19337@tevye.fc.hp.com> Reply-To: Jerry.Hoemann@hpe.com References: <260ee0c6c9481ceae79b967a95b5e9fe76c2eabc.1450036445.git.jerry.hoemann@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Ross Zwisler , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Dan Williams , elliott@hpe.com, jmoyer , krivenok.dmitry@gmail.com, linda.knippers@hpe.com, Robert Moore , Lv , Rafael Wysocki , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 03:07:22AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Jerry Hoemann wrote: > > The ACPI spec speicifies that arguments "Revision ID" and > > "Function Index" to a _DSM are type "Integer." Type Integers > > are 64 bit quantities. > > > > The function evaluate_dsm specifies these types as simple "int" > > which are 32 bits. Correct type passed to acpi_evaluate_dsm > > and its callers and derived callers to pass correct type. > > > > acpi_check_dsm and acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed had similar issue > > and were corrected as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Hoemann > > The changes look OK to me, but this is not ACPICA material. > > Please change the subject to something like "ACPI / utils: Fix > acpi_evaluate_dsm() argument type". > > Thanks, > Rafael Will do. thanks. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett Packard Enterprise -----------------------------------------------------------------------------