From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanno =?utf-8?q?B=C3=B6ck?= Subject: Re: oops with asus_acpi on P30/P35 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:49:13 +0200 Message-ID: <200508191749.18016.mail@hboeck.de> References: <20050618004506.GE3690@orest.greek0.net> <42C2BA01.2060806@gmx.net> <20050629155015.GB14659@hell.org.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1793571.Ed2gZYfgjS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050629155015.GB14659-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Karol Kozimor Cc: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger , "Moore, Robert" , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Christian Aichinger List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1793571.Ed2gZYfgjS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2005 17:50 schrieb Karol Kozimor: > Thus wrote Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: > >> Bob, is the implicit return code supposed to trigger also when using > >> acpi_evaluate_object()? FYI, this is what we currently do: > >> > >> write_acpi_int(hotk->handle, "INIT", 0, &buffer) > >> (drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c) > >> > >> which is fine if the INIT method returns a string (the usual), but > >> apparently not if there is no return statement in the method (the P30 > >> case). The old code assumed the buffer will be null in this case. > >> > >> Is that a bug in the ACPICA or should the asus_acpi code cover for oth= er > >> cases of buffer.type? > > > > Will the fix for this be submitted to stable-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org? I can't upgrade > > to 2.6.12.1 because of this oops. > > This should fix ya for now, but I can't sign it off until I get a comment > from Bob. This is still not fixed within 2.6.13_rc6. As 2.6.13 seems to be on the way= =20 and this bug is really grave/makes a piece of hardware unusable, can this b= e=20 pushed to the kernel tree as soon as possible? cu, Hanno --nextPart1793571.Ed2gZYfgjS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDBf99r2QksT29OyARAgmZAJ4g8I8RgJ/cQup0PPHTBLFc597WkgCeKmCv G37USmBrhYQHhG5G7hCBejA= =7/DK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1793571.Ed2gZYfgjS-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf