Hi,
this is a working and tested patch for 2.6.16/2.6.16.1 kernels.
Regards, Alan
acpi-ec-nospinlock-2.6.16 patch file
patched ec.c file
Logged In: YES user_id=1488066
Hi. I did the same approach (also today) but I still have a question about two blocks in your patch.
----------------------------------- acpi_status status = AE_OK; - int result = 0; - unsigned long flags = 0; + int result = 0; u32 glk = 0; ----------------------------------- ec->common.handle = device->handle; - ec->common.uid = -1; - spin_lock_init(&ec->poll.lock); + ec->common.uid = -1; + init_MUTEX(&ec->poll.sem); strcpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_EC_DEVICE_NAME); -----------------------------------
You first remove "int result = 0;" and "ec->common.uid = -1;" and then add them again, why? I simply remove them.
Well the most difficult thing was to find out, that they renamed polling in poll anyways ;).
Logged In: YES user_id=986926
Think that's diff fault! :-) Hope tobe useful.
Alan
Log in to post a comment.
acpi-ec-nospinlock-2.6.16 patch file
patched ec.c file
Logged In: YES
user_id=1488066
Hi. I did the same approach (also today) but I still have a
question about two blocks in your patch.
-----------------------------------
acpi_status status = AE_OK;
- int result = 0;
- unsigned long flags = 0;
+ int result = 0;
u32 glk = 0;
-----------------------------------
ec->common.handle = device->handle;
- ec->common.uid = -1;
- spin_lock_init(&ec->poll.lock);
+ ec->common.uid = -1;
+ init_MUTEX(&ec->poll.sem);
strcpy(acpi_device_name(device), ACPI_EC_DEVICE_NAME);
-----------------------------------
You first remove "int result = 0;" and "ec->common.uid =
-1;" and then add them again, why? I simply remove them.
Well the most difficult thing was to find out, that they
renamed polling in poll anyways ;).
Logged In: YES
user_id=986926
Think that's diff fault! :-) Hope tobe useful.
Alan