From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lin Ming Subject: Re: ACPICA release 20101013 linuxized patches Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:41:03 +0800 Message-ID: <1287391263.2226.7.camel@localhost> References: <1287366571.6530.3026.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:51257 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751322Ab0JRIk6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:40:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown , Colin Ian King Cc: "Moore, Robert" , linux-acpi On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 13:31 +0800, Len Brown wrote: > patch 5 doesn't look quite right, > because it leaves both > > #define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */ > and > #define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */ > > in aclocal.h > > If we're going to re-name what the original patch did, > then we should finsh the job and delete the original name, yes? No, we don't re-name anything. #define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */ #define ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE 0x4000 /* ACPI 3.0 */ These are the bit positions for the status and enable registers. Colin's original patch mis-used ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_DISABLE which should be ACPI_BITMASK_PCIEXP_WAKE_STATUS, but it didn't cause any problem because they have the same value 0x4000. Bob has corrected it, see comment #1 at http://www.acpica.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=880 Lin Ming > > thanks, > Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center >