On Tuesday 18 September 2007 05:53:28 pm Luck, Tony wrote:
If you don't object to the two patches, can you incorporate them
as originally posted? If you'd prefer a different approach, I'd
be happy to rework them, of course.
I think that adding 4K to the kernel (about 0.04% increase
If you don't object to the two patches, can you incorporate them
as originally posted? If you'd prefer a different approach, I'd
be happy to rework them, of course.
I think that adding 4K to the kernel (about 0.04% increase looking
at a recent build ... or 0.0001% of total memory on a 4G
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 05:14:56 pm Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
...
So I'm interested in feedback on the following patches, which do not
export sal_lock, but rather export functions that can be used to call
SAL or other native firmware interfaces.
Hi Tony,
I haven't heard much feedback, and I
Here are a couple patches on which I'd like some feedback.
The basic idea is that ACPI AML methods sometimes need to do something
that is already implemented as a SAL interface. ACPI doesn't provide a
way for an AML method to directly call the SAL interface. That means
firmware writers
