Pali Rohár found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
the instance_count in _WDG.
This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Cc: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
index 79fa5ab..ef420b6 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
@@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ struct acpi_buffer *result)
input.length = sizeof(struct wmab_args);
input.pointer = (u8 *)regbuf;
- status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 1, 1, &input, result);
+ status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 0, 1, &input, result);
return status;
}
@@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ WMI_execute_u32(u32 method_id, u32 in, u32 *out)
u32 tmp = 0;
acpi_status status;
- status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 1, method_id, &input, &result);
+ status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 0, method_id, &input, &result);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
return status;
@@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ static acpi_status __init WMID_set_capabilities(void)
acpi_status status;
u32 devices;
- status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
+ status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
return status;
@@ -2018,7 +2018,7 @@ static u32 get_wmid_devices(void)
acpi_status status;
u32 devices = 0;
- status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
+ status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
return 0;
--
2.10.2
On Tuesday 20 June 2017 17:06:23 Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> Pali Rohár found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
> code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
> But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
> the instance_count in _WDG.
>
> This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
>
> Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> Cc: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
Looks good, Reviewed-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> index 79fa5ab..ef420b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ struct acpi_buffer *result)
> input.length = sizeof(struct wmab_args);
> input.pointer = (u8 *)regbuf;
>
> - status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 1, 1, &input, result);
> + status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 0, 1, &input, result);
>
> return status;
> }
> @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ WMI_execute_u32(u32 method_id, u32 in, u32 *out)
> u32 tmp = 0;
> acpi_status status;
>
> - status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 1, method_id, &input, &result);
> + status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 0, method_id, &input, &result);
>
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> return status;
> @@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ static acpi_status __init WMID_set_capabilities(void)
> acpi_status status;
> u32 devices;
>
> - status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
> + status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> return status;
>
> @@ -2018,7 +2018,7 @@ static u32 get_wmid_devices(void)
> acpi_status status;
> u32 devices = 0;
>
> - status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
> + status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> return 0;
>
--
Pali Rohár
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Pali Rohár <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2017 17:06:23 Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
>> Pali Rohár found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
>> code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
>> But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
>> the instance_count in _WDG.
>>
>> This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
>>
>> Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
>
> Looks good, Reviewed-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
Unfortunately patchwork ignores this tag.
So, in the future please:
- put a tag on a separate line
- do _not_ prepend it by any characters including white spaces (except
new line :-) )
No need to resend this one.
Pushed to testing, thanks!
>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
>> index 79fa5ab..ef420b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
>> @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ struct acpi_buffer *result)
>> input.length = sizeof(struct wmab_args);
>> input.pointer = (u8 *)regbuf;
>>
>> - status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 1, 1, &input, result);
>> + status = wmi_evaluate_method(AMW0_GUID1, 0, 1, &input, result);
>>
>> return status;
>> }
>> @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ WMI_execute_u32(u32 method_id, u32 in, u32 *out)
>> u32 tmp = 0;
>> acpi_status status;
>>
>> - status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 1, method_id, &input, &result);
>> + status = wmi_evaluate_method(WMID_GUID1, 0, method_id, &input, &result);
>>
>> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> return status;
>> @@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ static acpi_status __init WMID_set_capabilities(void)
>> acpi_status status;
>> u32 devices;
>>
>> - status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
>> + status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
>> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> return status;
>>
>> @@ -2018,7 +2018,7 @@ static u32 get_wmid_devices(void)
>> acpi_status status;
>> u32 devices = 0;
>>
>> - status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 1, &out);
>> + status = wmi_query_block(WMID_GUID2, 0, &out);
>> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> return 0;
>>
>
> --
> Pali Rohár
> [email protected]
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tuesday 20 June 2017 19:22:46 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 June 2017 17:06:23 Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> >> Pali Rohár found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
> >> code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
> >> But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
> >> the instance_count in _WDG.
> >>
> >> This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
> >>
> >> Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Looks good, Reviewed-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>
>
> Unfortunately patchwork ignores this tag.
> So, in the future please:
> - put a tag on a separate line
> - do _not_ prepend it by any characters including white spaces
> (except new line :-) )
I have not known that those lines are parsed automatically.
Will do it in future!
> No need to resend this one.
>
> Pushed to testing, thanks!
--
Pali Rohár
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:46:12PM +0200, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2017 19:22:46 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 20 June 2017 17:06:23 Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > >> Pali Roh?r found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
> > >> code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
> > >> But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
> > >> the instance_count in _WDG.
> > >>
> > >> This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
> > >>
> > >> Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
> > >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> > >> Cc: Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> > >> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Looks good, Reviewed-by: Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> >
> > Unfortunately patchwork ignores this tag.
> > So, in the future please:
> > - put a tag on a separate line
> > - do _not_ prepend it by any characters including white spaces
> > (except new line :-) )
>
> I have not known that those lines are parsed automatically.
> Will do it in future!
:-) Thanks!
For reference, Patchwork tally's such things in the patch list view:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/platform-driver-x86/list/
And, selfishly, the more normalized these are, the less likely Andy and I are to
make mistakes manipulating them into the patches.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:46:12PM +0200, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 June 2017 19:22:46 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 20 June 2017 17:06:23 Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > >> Pali Roh?r found that there have some wmi query/evaluation
> > > >> code that they used 'one' as the first WMI instance number.
> > > >> But the number is indexed from zero that it's must less than
> > > >> the instance_count in _WDG.
> > > >>
> > > >> This patch changes those instance number from one to zero.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
> > > >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> > > >> Cc: Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Looks good, Reviewed-by: Pali Roh?r <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Unfortunately patchwork ignores this tag.
> > > So, in the future please:
> > > - put a tag on a separate line
> > > - do _not_ prepend it by any characters including white spaces
> > > (except new line :-) )
I see! I will also follow the rules in the future.
> >
> > I have not known that those lines are parsed automatically.
> > Will do it in future!
>
> :-) Thanks!
>
> For reference, Patchwork tally's such things in the patch list view:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/platform-driver-x86/list/
>
> And, selfishly, the more normalized these are, the less likely Andy and I are to
> make mistakes manipulating them into the patches.
>
Joey Lee