From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] thinkpad_acpi: Hook volume events Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:20:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20100505132030.GA24372@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1272916980-11835-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <1272916980-11835-2-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <20100505113004.GA19480@khazad-dum.debian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:56741 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932275Ab0EENUg (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 May 2010 09:20:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100505113004.GA19480@khazad-dum.debian.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, ibm-acpi@hmh.eng.br, ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:30:05AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > The idea is sound, but it would be probably cleaner to do it only on those > thinkpads which need it. I don't like the idea of handling duplicate > notifications, and the logic depends entirely on nothing messing with the > mixer state behind our backs, I'd prefer to rely on it just when strictly > required. In this case the notification is purely at the ALSA level, so there's no harm caused by duplicate notifications. > Also, UCMS is called for a number of reasons. It would be best to filter > based on the UCMS parameter before doing an expensive PC CMOS RAM read or EC > read. We will be dealing with a finite number of thinkpads anyway. Passing the parameter is... difficult. That would involve rather more surgery to the ACPI core, since the parameters are core-internal objects at this point. It's an obvious feature though, so I'll look into it some more. > On the same note, we need to be called *after* the UCMS method completes, > otherwise, we will have to schedule delayed work. I didn't study your ACPI > patch enough to know whether this happens, but that detail is not clear from > the description. The call is made after executing the original method, yes. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org