On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:44:07PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> Here's another round of the patches for expanded hotkey support for
> Toshibas addressing the problems raised in the last round. Changes since
> v2:
>
> * Use WMI GUID instead of DMI data to identify models with buggy INFO
> implementations
> * Add comment in makefile regarding link order requirement necessary
> for the above
Matthew: Just wondering if there are more issues that need to be
addressed with this round of patches, or if they're looking okay at this
point.
Seth
>
> Thanks,
> Seth
>
>
> Azael Avalos (1):
> toshiba_acpi: Support additional hotkey scancodes
>
> Seth Forshee (3):
> ACPI: EC: Add ec_get_handle()
> toshiba_acpi: Support alternate hotkey interfaces
> toshiba_acpi: Refuse to load on machines with buggy INFO
> implementations
>
> drivers/acpi/ec.c | 10 ++
> drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
> drivers/platform/x86/Makefile | 4 +
> drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 246 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
> 5 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:06:58AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> Matthew: Just wondering if there are more issues that need to be
> addressed with this round of patches, or if they're looking okay at this
> point.
I'm fine with them at this point, just waiting on Len to give feedback
on the ACPI patch.
--
Matthew Garrett | [email protected]
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:15:48PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:06:58AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
>
> > Matthew: Just wondering if there are more issues that need to be
> > addressed with this round of patches, or if they're looking okay at this
> > point.
>
> I'm fine with them at this point, just waiting on Len to give feedback
> on the ACPI patch.
Len,
Do you have any objection to the patch [1]?
Thanks,
Seth
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/18/333
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:56:46AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:15:48PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:06:58AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >
> > > Matthew: Just wondering if there are more issues that need to be
> > > addressed with this round of patches, or if they're looking okay at this
> > > point.
> >
> > I'm fine with them at this point, just waiting on Len to give feedback
> > on the ACPI patch.
>
> Len,
>
> Do you have any objection to the patch [1]?
>
> Thanks,
> Seth
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/18/333
Ping. This is a pretty trivial patch, so I'd really appreicate it if you
could take a couple of minutes to give feedback. It would be really nice
to be able to get some action on these patches in time for 3.4.
Thanks,
Seth