From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform samsung-q10: use ACPI instead of direct EC calls Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1373297814.24233.5.camel@x230.lan> References: <20130703212737.GC5579@lat.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:51196 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751484Ab3GHPhA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:37:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130703212737.GC5579@lat.lan> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Frederick van der Wyck Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 22:27 +0100, Frederick van der Wyck wrote: > +#define EC_HID "PNP0C09" This is probably wrong - you should be able to just use first_ec directly rather than probing yourself. > + for (i = 0; i < SAMSUNGQ10_BL_MAX_INTENSITY; i++) { > + status = acpi_evaluate_object(ec_handle, "_Q63", NULL, NULL); The potential problem here is that there's no guarantee that these event numbers are stable, and a firmware upgrade could change them. Of course, that's also true of the EC registers, but we haven't had anyone complain about the driver suddenly breaking so I'm not hugely enthusiastic about replacing one fragile but seemingly working method with a fragile but unproven one. -- Matthew Garrett