From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: final set of EC init patches Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:04:46 +0300 Message-ID: <45EE721E.50909@linux.intel.com> References: <45E6050D.2060908@linux.intel.com> <200703070034.06530.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:41129 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964893AbXCGIEu (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 03:04:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200703070034.06530.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: linux-acpi Len Brown wrote: > why is fake_ecdt no longer necessary -- because ec initializes first now? > > right > while I'm glad to see the ec_burst_enable exported -- it is currently > not called and we continue to always operate in normal mode, yes? > > yes > it seems that burst mode is intended for when we want to push > a series of commands to the ec, so we'd > 1. enable burst mode > 2. do a bunch of ec transactions > 2. disable burst mode > right? > > right > Anybody got any candidates for a series of transactions that would > benefit from this mode? If yes, is it possible to detect an efficiency > benefit from enabling burst mode for that series? > > the one obvious candidate is smart battery, it reads all of its data as separate read/writes through EC. > yes, i like "boot_ec" better than "ec_ecdt". > > glad to hear that :) > as usual, they patch series is "light" on check-in comments -- > in particular, there are none at all explaining why these > changes are necessary. > > make code cleaner... > thanks, > -Len > > ps. mbox applies better if "From" is not replaced by ">From" >