Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752048Ab3FZPrR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:47:17 -0400 Received: from nat28.tlf.novell.com ([130.57.49.28]:53031 "EHLO nat28.tlf.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751349Ab3FZPrN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:47:13 -0400 Message-Id: <51CB291E02000078000E0DFB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 12.0.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:47:10 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Ben Guthro" Cc: "Gang Wei" , , , "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" , "Rafaell J . Wysocki" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep References: <1372255575-29567-1-git-send-email-benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> <1372255575-29567-3-git-send-email-benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> <51CB1A5902000078000E0D82@nat28.tlf.novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1443 Lines: 33 >>> On 26.06.13 at 16:55, Ben Guthro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro wrote: >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c >>> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static void tboot_copy_fadt(const struct acpi_table_fadt > *fadt) >>> offsetof(struct acpi_table_facs, firmware_waking_vector); >>> } >>> >>> -static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control) >>> +static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control, >>> + u8 extended) >> >> I don't see why this couldn't remain "bool" - the only complain was >> that ACPI CA shouldn't use it. > > I changed it, in order to keep the prototypes consistent. > Having the function pointer be defined with one signature in the > acpica code, and another in the os implementation seems like a > maintenance problem. Of course the first patch would need adjustments too: The function pointer would also want to use bool then. Again - it's only the ACPI CA code that wants to get away without using bool/true/false. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/