From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power Idle(LPI) states Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 17:43:34 +0000 Message-ID: <565DDC46.6020707@arm.com> References: <1438710406-3822-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1442411963-14398-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1442411963-14398-6-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <565DD7A6.1000802@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:37569 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbbLARnm (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:43:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <565DD7A6.1000802@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Prakash, Prashanth" , Ashwin Chaugule Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux acpi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , lkml , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Al Stone , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mahesh Sivasubramanian , wufan@codeaurora.org Hi Prashanth, On 01/12/15 17:23, Prakash, Prashanth wrote: > Hi Sudeep, >>> +static void combine_lpi_states(struct acpi_processor_lpi *l_lpi, >>> + struct acpi_processor_lpi *p_lpi, >>> + struct acpi_processor_lpi *c_lpi) >>> +{ >>> + c_lpi->min_residency = max(l_lpi->min_residency, p_lpi->min_residency); >>> + c_lpi->wake_latency = l_lpi->wake_latency + p_lpi->wake_latency; >>> + c_lpi->enable_parent_state = p_lpi->enable_parent_state; >>> + c_lpi->entry_method = l_lpi->entry_method; >>> + c_lpi->address = l_lpi->address + p_lpi->address; >>> + c_lpi->index = p_lpi->index; >>> + c_lpi->flags = p_lpi->flags; >>> + c_lpi->arch_flags = p_lpi->arch_flags; >>> + strncpy(c_lpi->desc, l_lpi->desc, ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN); >>> + strncat(c_lpi->desc, "+", ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN); >>> + strncat(c_lpi->desc, p_lpi->desc, ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN); >>> +} > I suppose you meant to use strl* instead of strn* operations. Below is a > simple patch to fix these. Can you please fold these changes into your next > version as well? > Thanks for reporting, I had fixed it already as I ran into same issue when I was playing around with the description string in the LPI tables. Just adding some comments to the code now where ever it's not so obvious, will post it tomorrow. -- Regards, Sudeep