Re: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:43:41 -0400 Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 05 October 2006 00:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0400 > > Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm okay applying this patch it touches the linux-specific > > > drivers/acpi/*

Re: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Len Brown
On Thursday 05 October 2006 00:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0400 > Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm okay applying this patch it touches the linux-specific > > drivers/acpi/* files only, no ACPICA files. > > Why? Why am I okay with it? I'm okay with it bec

2.6.19-rc1: known regressions

2006-10-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
Contrary to popular belief, there are people who test -rc kernels and report bugs. And there are even people who test -git kernels. This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.19-rc1 compared to 2.6.18. If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one of the bugs, maint

Re: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0400 Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm okay applying this patch it touches the linux-specific > drivers/acpi/* files only, no ACPICA files. Why? Would it help if it was split into two? How do mortals distinguish ACPICA files from Linux files? > But I don't

Re: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Len Brown
I'm okay applying this patch it touches the linux-specific drivers/acpi/* files only, no ACPICA files. But I don't know if Linus will want changes like this post -rc1. It might be a pain to have in the tree all the way to 2.6.20 opens b/c it is sure to cause merge conflicts -- and at the end of th

Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 1/3] - Altix: Add initial ACPI IO support

2006-10-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:56:49 -0700 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 04:49:25PM -0500, John Keller wrote: > > First phase in introducing ACPI support to SN. > > In this phase, when running with an ACPI capable PROM, > > the DSDT will define the root busses and all SN node

Re: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:40:56 -0700 "Moore, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most of the casting stuff is because ACPICA has to support a bunch of > different compilers. What compiler generates a warning when you fail to cast a void*? That's standard C isn't it? - To unsubscribe from this list

Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 1/3] - Altix: Add initial ACPI IO support

2006-10-04 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 04:49:25PM -0500, John Keller wrote: > First phase in introducing ACPI support to SN. > In this phase, when running with an ACPI capable PROM, > the DSDT will define the root busses and all SN nodes > (SGIHUB, SGITIO). An ACPI bus driver will be registered > for the node dev

T60 ACPI events on 78b656b8

2006-10-04 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
Just tested the latest Linux git, and I see a weird issue: after some use, my T60 stops triggering any ACPI events: tail -f /var/log/acpid does not show anything, even on Fn/F4 which is supposed ot be always enabled. Restarting the acpid doesn't do anything either - ACPI starts working again, for a

[PATCH 2/3] - Altix: Add initial ACPI IO support (hotplug)

2006-10-04 Thread John Keller
SN ACPI hotplug support. A few minor changes to the way slot/device fixup is done. No need to be calling sn_pci_controller_fixup(), as a root bus cannot be hotplugged. Signed-off-by: John Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Resend #2 - resync with TOT drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c | 35 +++

[PATCH 3/3] - Altix: Initial ACPI support - ROM shadowing.

2006-10-04 Thread John Keller
Support a shadowed ROM when running with an ACPI capable PROM. Define a new dev.resource flag IORESOURCE_ROM_BIOS_COPY to describe the case of a BIOS shadowed ROM, which can then be used to avoid pci_map_rom() making an unneeded call to pci_enable_rom(). Signed-off-by: John Keller <[EMAIL PROTEC

RE: [PATCH] Cast removal

2006-10-04 Thread Moore, Robert
Most of the casting stuff is because ACPICA has to support a bunch of different compilers. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-acpi- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Engelhardt > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:29 PM > To: Linux Kernel Mailing List > Cc:

RE: Problems with the Intel IASL Compiler

2006-10-04 Thread Moore, Robert
Try adding External (\_SB.PCI0.SBRG.EC0.ACIN) Newer versions of the disassembler will automatically emit this external. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-acpi- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Buehler > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:14 PM > To: linux

Re: Lenovo 3000 N100: no battery rate

2006-10-04 Thread Richard Hughes
On 04/10/06, Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please open bug at bugzilla.kernel.org against ACPI/battery and attach output from acpidump to it. Done: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7263 - thanks for the pointer. Richard. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin

Re: Lenovo 3000 N100: no battery rate

2006-10-04 Thread Alexey Starikovskiy
Please open bug at bugzilla.kernel.org against ACPI/battery and attach output from acpidump to it. Thanks, Alex Richard Hughes wrote: > Hey, > > My new Lenovo 3000 N100 works great with ACPI Linux of the box -- with > one exception. > > "cat /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/state" *always* repor

Lenovo 3000 N100: no battery rate

2006-10-04 Thread Richard Hughes
Hey, My new Lenovo 3000 N100 works great with ACPI Linux of the box -- with one exception. "cat /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/state" *always* reports "present rate: 0 mA" - which means I get no rate information for gnome-power-manager, and hence no graphs or data on the power usage. As the author of g