1. 16 12月, 2009 5 次提交
  2. 25 11月, 2009 12 次提交
  3. 06 11月, 2009 6 次提交
  4. 28 10月, 2009 1 次提交
    • A
      ACPI: clean up video.c boundary checks and types · 52a2b11c
      Arjan van de Ven 提交于
      proc.c and video.c are a bit sloppy around types and style,
      confusing gcc for a new feature that'll be in 2.6.33 and will
      cause a warning on the current code.
      
      This patch changes
      
      if  (foo + 1 > sizeof bar)
      
      into
      
      if (foo >= sizeof(bar))
      
      which is more kernel-style.
      
      it also changes a variable in proc.c to unsigned; it gets assigned
      a value from an unsigned type, and is then only compared for > not
      for negative, so using unsigned is just outright the right type
      Signed-off-by: NArjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      52a2b11c
  5. 13 10月, 2009 3 次提交
  6. 10 10月, 2009 1 次提交
  7. 07 10月, 2009 1 次提交
  8. 03 10月, 2009 5 次提交
  9. 02 10月, 2009 3 次提交
  10. 28 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  11. 27 9月, 2009 2 次提交
    • R
      ACPI: Kill overly verbose "power state" log messages · 3d5b6fb4
      Roland Dreier 提交于
      I was recently lucky enough to get a 64-CPU system, so my kernel log
      ends up with 64 lines like:
      
          ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1] C2[C3])
      
      This is pretty useless clutter because this info is already available
      after boot from both /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/state?/ as
      well as /proc/acpi/processor/CPU*/power.
      
      So just delete the code that prints the C-states in processor_idle.c.
      Signed-off-by: NRoland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      3d5b6fb4
    • J
      ACPI: Clarify resource conflict message · 14f03343
      Jean Delvare 提交于
      The message "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver" is misleading. The
      device _may_ need an ACPI driver, if the BIOS implemented a custom
      API for the device in question (which, AFAIK, can't be checked.) If
      not, then either a generic ACPI driver may be used (for example
      "thermal"), or nothing can be done (other than a white list).
      
      I propose to reword the message to:
      
      ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use
      it instead of the native driver
      
      which I think is more correct. Comments and suggestions welcome.
      
      I also added a message warning about possible problems and system
      instability when users pass acpi_enforce_resources=lax, as suggested
      by Len.
      Signed-off-by: NJean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
      Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
      Cc: Alan Jenkins <sourcejedi.lkml@googlemail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      14f03343