On Friday 24 August 2007 04:07, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 03:20 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > please speak up if you see any problem with these patches.
> > Also, please let me know if I've missed something you
> > think needs to make 2.6.23.
> >
> What about the latest patch in bug 8798?
> It can fix the duplicate name problem without changing the
> procfs generic code.
Do we need to null-terminate bus_id?
-Len
----------
Subject: hack duplicate name "VID" problem on T61
From: Zhang Rui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This can only fix the problem that more than one video bus device
have the same AML name "VID".
ie. the proc I/F for the second "VID" video bus device is located under
/proc/acpi/video/VID1/...
As this is really rare and the ACPI proc I/F is a legacy feature that
we are planning to remove.
We won't provide a generic solution for this problem.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/acpi/video.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.23-rc3/drivers/acpi/video.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.23-rc3.orig/drivers/acpi/video.c
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc3/drivers/acpi/video.c
@@ -1833,6 +1833,7 @@ static void acpi_video_device_notify(acp
return;
}
+static int instance;
static int acpi_video_bus_add(struct acpi_device *device)
{
int result = 0;
@@ -1847,6 +1848,13 @@ static int acpi_video_bus_add(struct acp
if (!video)
return -ENOMEM;
+ /* a hack to fix the duplicate name "VID" problem on T61 */
+ if (!strcmp(device->pnp.bus_id, "VID")) {
+ if (instance)
+ device->pnp.bus_id[3] = '0' + instance;
+ instance ++;
+ }
+
video->device = device;
strcpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_VIDEO_BUS_NAME);
strcpy(acpi_device_class(device), ACPI_VIDEO_CLASS);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
