Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:33699 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750856AbcAMG4A (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:56:00 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id is5so47766027obc.0 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:55:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:55:39 -0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20160113_075604_229278_2338713B) Subject: Re: Invalid SPLX To: Emmanuel Grumbach Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Linux Wireless List , Emmanuel Grumbach , Arik Nemtsov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Hi- >> >> My laptop has SPLC implemented like this: >> >> Name (SPLX, Package (0x04) >> { >> Zero, >> Package (0x03) >> { >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000 >> }, >> >> Package (0x03) >> { >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000 >> }, >> >> Package (0x03) >> { >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000, >> 0x80000000 >> } >> }) >> Method (SPLC, 0, Serialized) >> { >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), Zero) = DOM1 /* \DOM1 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), One) = LIM1 /* \LIM1 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), 0x02) = TIM1 /* \TIM1 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), Zero) = DOM2 /* \DOM2 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), One) = LIM2 /* \LIM2 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), 0x02) = TIM2 /* \TIM2 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), Zero) = DOM3 /* \DOM3 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), One) = LIM3 /* \LIM3 */ >> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), 0x02) = TIM3 /* \TIM3 */ >> Return (SPLX) /* \_SB_.PCI0.RP14.PXSX.SPLX */ >> } >> >> splx_get_power_limit rejects this because it has more than one entry. >> I don't see a spec for SPLC, but I'd guess that splx_get_power_limit >> should iterate all the entries to find one that indicates wifi. >> >> Also, should this be in common code instead of just in iwleifi? >> > > TBH, I don't know much about that. I'll ask internally and get back to > you. I am badly overloaded, so feel free to ping me in a few days if > you haven't heard from me. Happy new year! Consider yourself pinged :) --Andy