[RFC,PATCH 5/7 v2] acpi: only run ACPI tests if we have ACPI

YK yk at canonical.com
Thu Jul 24 08:49:07 UTC 2014


Hi Jeremy,

howdy !  could you please let me know if you're going to keep working on 
this v2 , or we can ignore this v2 patch set and looking forward to your 
v3 ?

thanks
-YK

On 2014年05月01日 18:49, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
>>>   src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c   |    5 +++--
>>>   src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c       |    5 +++--
>>>   src/acpi/method/method.c           |    3 ++-
>>>   src/acpi/syntaxcheck/syntaxcheck.c |    3 ++-
>>>   src/pci/aspm/aspm.c                |    5 +++--
>>>   5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> There are a bunch more ACPI related tests that probably need attention too:
> Yep, I was going for an in-principal approval of the concept before
> attacking more of the tests :)
>
>>> diff --git a/src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c b/src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c
>>> index 439df2a..5f6beb9 100644
>>> --- a/src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c
>>> +++ b/src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c
>>> @@ -613,7 +613,8 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test acpi_table_check_tests[] = {
>>>   
>>>   static fwts_framework_ops acpi_table_check_ops = {
>>>   	.description = "ACPI table settings sanity tests.",
>>> -	.minor_tests = acpi_table_check_tests
>>> +	.minor_tests = acpi_table_check_tests,
>>>   };
>> Any particular reason of this addition comma?
> Just a remnant of the original change which added the .init member to do
> the feature check. I'll take these out.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Jeremy
>


-- 
Yang Kun (YK) 杨昆
Engineering Manager, Hardware Enablement Team
Canonical, Ltd.




More information about the fwts-devel mailing list