From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ACPI: WMI: Add ACPI-WMI mapping driver Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:21:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20071227022140.GA2143@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20071218235137.12838.75397.stgit@localhost> <20071218235143.12838.33679.stgit@localhost> <20071226211718.GA31564@srcf.ucam.org> <200712270109.40121.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([78.32.9.130]:35924 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751707AbXL0CVz (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:21:55 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712270109.40121.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Carlos Corbacho Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Alexey Starikovskiy On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:09:39AM +0000, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 21:17:18 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > + if (!wmi_external_handler) > > + return AE_ALREADY_ACQUIRED; > > I'm not sure (mostly because I don't like dealing with typedefs around > pointers, and this bit is also untested). At the moment, it's impossible to register a handler - I always get AE_ALREADY_ACQUIRED. Getting rid of the ! makes things work like I expected. > > I'm also a bit > > unhappy about only being able to register one notification handler, if > > we consider the case where vendors add and remove WMI interfaces over > > time - it might make sense to have individual small drivers rather than > > one big one, which would mean a notification handler per GUID. Any > > thoughts? > > Yes, a notification handler per GUID does make sense, so I'll add that to WMI. Excellent, thanks! -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org