Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1465719 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-08-19 03:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-08-19 03:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-08-19 04:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-08-19 04:00 +0200

#1465719 — Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> wrote:
> The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it never
> would've worked because we weren't setting the
> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.

Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing a
backport or taking this back to a -stable branch.  Something like:

Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications

Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to gate
notification delivery.

Fixes: 209851649dc4 ("acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add")

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1465808

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hpe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> wrote:
>>> The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it never
>>> would've worked because we weren't setting the
>>> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.
>>
>> Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing a
>> backport or taking this back to a -stable branch.  Something like:
>>
>> Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications
>>
>> Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
>> support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
>> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to gate
>> notification delivery.
>
> While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to explicitly check
> for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT?  I'm thinking about some time
> in the future when there might be more than one event.

Yes, good idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1465863

On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 12:54 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hpe.c
> om> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@int
> > > el.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it
> > > > never
> > > > would've worked because we weren't setting the
> > > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.
> > > 
> > > Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing
> > > a
> > > backport or taking this back to a -stable branch.  Something like:
> > > 
> > > Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications
> > > 
> > > Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
> > > support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
> > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to
> > > gate
> > > notification delivery.
> > 
> > While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to
> > explicitly check
> > for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT?  I'm thinking about
> > some time
> > in the future when there might be more than one event.
> 
> Yes, good idea.

Sounds good, part of the same patch or separately?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1465872

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Verma, Vishal L
<vishal.l.verma@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 12:54 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hpe.c
>> om> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@int
>> > > el.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it
>> > > > never
>> > > > would've worked because we weren't setting the
>> > > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.
>> > >
>> > > Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing
>> > > a
>> > > backport or taking this back to a -stable branch.  Something like:
>> > >
>> > > Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications
>> > >
>> > > Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
>> > > support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
>> > > ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to
>> > > gate
>> > > notification delivery.
>> >
>> > While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to
>> > explicitly check
>> > for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT?  I'm thinking about
>> > some time
>> > in the future when there might be more than one event.
>>
>> Yes, good idea.
>
> Sounds good, part of the same patch or separately?

Separate.

In general, if you would write the word "also" in a patch description,
that's an indication to make a separate patch.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web