Re: [PATCH 15/16] platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF metadata

[Pali RohÃr]

On Friday 09 June 2017 17:46:12 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pali RohÃr [mailto:pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 3:50 PM
> > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-
> > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > luto@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16]
> > platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF
> > metadata
> > 
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2017 22:23:08 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pali RohÃr [mailto:pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:39 PM
> > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-
> > > > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > luto@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16]
> > > > platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF
> > > > metadata
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 15:56:21 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 13:46:16 Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 2) On my system when you expand the arguments for "void
> > > > > > DoBFn" the source doesn't describe individual arguments
> > > > > > like you do. Again this might not matter to MOF parsing
> > > > > > tools but wanted to let you know in case it does.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know, this part is missing. Order of arguments are only in
> > > > > ID qualifier and not sorted + in/out de-duplicated.
> > > > 
> > > > Implemented! Now arguments are correctly placed based on ID
> > > > qualifier.
> > > 
> > > I think it's still off a little though.
> > > 
> > > What I'm getting back now from bmf2mof is:
> > > 	void DoBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), out] BDat Data);
> > > 
> > > Whereas source puts Description as the last argument:
> > > 	void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data);
> > 
> > In BMOF from my Latitude E6440 there are specified two parameters
> > with index 0. One with qualifiers ("in", Description("Fn buf"))
> > and one with ("out", Description("Fn buf")). I think you have
> > similar/same data in BMOF.
> > 
> > In my bmf2mof I just combined those two parameters into one (when
> > name, type and index matches) and concatenate also qualifiers with
> > removing duplicates.
> > 
> > Do not know what is correct way, but I think qualifiers are just
> > unordered set. MS decompiler probably put "in" and "out" qualifiers
> > before any other for better readability.
> 
> Have you tried to run it through mofcomp.exe and then decompile again
> with bmf2mof?  As long as it's coming out the same you're probably
> right.

Yes, bmf2mof+mofcomp.exe+bmf2mof gives same output as just bmf2mof.

> > > > > > source:
> > > > > > 	void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > bmf2mof:
> > > > > > 	void doBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data,
> > > > > > 	[out, Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data);
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Pali RohÃr
> > > > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > --
> > Pali RohÃr
> > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx

-- 
Pali RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.