On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:30:44AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:25:46AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:15:43 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > > > All ACPI device notify
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:25:46AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:15:43 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > > All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> > > > which causes th
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 05:07:18PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:25:46AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> > > Rafael, the above rationale appears sound to me. Do you have any concerns?
> >
> > I actually do.
> >
> > While this is the case today, making the driver code depen
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:25:46AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:15:43 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> > > which causes the supplied
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:15:43 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> > which causes the supplied callback to be queued to a static workqueue
> > which always executes o
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 09:44:58AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:09PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > > The events seen by userspace with the original code would be "A-press",
> > > > "B-press", "A
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:09PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > The events seen by userspace with the original code would be "A-press",
> > > "B-press", "A-release", "B-release". With the revised code the order of
> > > the
>
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > The events seen by userspace with the original code would be "A-press",
> > "B-press", "A-release", "B-release". With the revised code the order of the
> > release events would be reversed compared to the previous behaviour. That
> Hi Darren
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:44:13PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > I think the buffer size could probably be reduced a little without
> > > impacting
> > > on functionality. I suspect the value was chosen so as to be well above
> > > the
> > > number of events which could be gen
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> > which causes the supplied callback to be queued to a static workqueue
> > which always executes on CPU 0. This means that there is no possibility
> > for a
Hi Darren
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:44:13PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > I think the buffer size could probably be reduced a little without impacting
> > on functionality. I suspect the value was chosen so as to be well above the
> > number of events which could be generated ahead of a button r
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:20:21AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15:43AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > -#define RINGBUFFERSIZE 40
> > >
> > > /* Debugging */
> > > #define FUJLAPTOP_DBG_ERROR
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15:43AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > -#define RINGBUFFERSIZE 40
> >
> > /* Debugging */
> > #define FUJLAPTOP_DBG_ERROR 0x0001
> > @@ -146,8 +144,8 @@ struct fujitsu_laptop {
> > struct
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> which causes the supplied callback to be queued to a static workqueue
> which always executes on CPU 0. This means that there is no possibility
> for any ACPI de
All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
which causes the supplied callback to be queued to a static workqueue
which always executes on CPU 0. This means that there is no possibility
for any ACPI device notify callback to be concurrently executed on
multiple CPUs, whic
15 matches
Mail list logo
