On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:58 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael
>
> On 21/01/2021 21:06, Daniel Scally wrote:
> >
> > On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:58:17AM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 21:06, Daniel Scally wrote:
> > On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
> > No problem; I'll tweak that then
>
> Slightly walking back my "No problem" here; as I understand this there's
> kinda two options:
Hi Rafael
On 21/01/2021 21:06, Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 11:58
On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:4
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally
> >>> wrote:
> Hi R
On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
Hi Rafael
On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael
> >>
> >> On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >
On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
>> Hi Rafael
>>
>> On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael
>
> On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
> In s
Hi Rafael
On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
>>
On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
a depe
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
> >> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> >> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the Op
On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
>> specification intends. We need to be able to
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
>
> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
> specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from"
> the dependee, so add
On 18/01/2021 12:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:23AM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
>> specification intends. We need to b
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:23AM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
> specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from"
> the dependee,
Morning Laurent
On 18/01/2021 07:34, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:23AM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to t
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the patch.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:23AM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
> specification intends. We need to be able to fin
In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from"
the dependee, so add a function to parse all ACPI Devices and check if
the include t
19 matches
Mail list logo
