Tested again, new version also works as expected, mptramp_pagetables is 0x7bf77000 on c720

Accepting to confirm that I tested this patch one more time against r338318 on the Acer Chromebook c720 (previous test was against an older version of the kernel). Obviously my feedback isn't sufficient and this still requires review by the original reviewers (aka experts).

@kib Updated by tree to r334733 and applied the patch, it's working as expected, thanks!

Fix typo and extra whitespace

In D14103#300013, @emaste wrote:

Testing with this change on X260 (LEN0068, MHKV 0x0200 AFAICT) I see warnings like:

# sysctl dev.acpi_ibm.0.kbd_backlight=0
ACPI Warning: \_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY.MLCG: Insufficient arguments - Caller passed 0, method requires 1 (20180209/nsarguments-383)
ACPI Warning: \_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY.MLCG: Insufficient arguments - Caller passed 0, method requires 1 (20180209/nsarguments-383)
dev.acpi_ibm.0.kbd_backlight: 1ACPI Warning: \_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY.MLCG: Insufficient arguments - Caller passed 0, method requires 1 (20180209/nsarguments-383)
 -> ACPI Warning: \_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY.MLCG: Insufficient arguments - Caller passed 0, method requires 1 (20180209/nsarguments-383)
ACPI Warning: \_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY.MLCG: Insufficient arguments - Caller passed 0, method requires 1 (20180209/nsarguments-383)
0
#

Keyboard backlight control works despite the warnings. I haven't tested this machine on an unpatched kernel. echo 1 > /dev/led/micmute has no effect.

Add support for controlling micmute LED

Please note that man page changes are pending, but will be added to the review before committing any changes.

Add support for controlling the keyboard backlight found in newer lenovo models.

@rodrigc I think this can be closed.

@koobs Just glanced at it, trusting your judgement.

Thanks for taking over, I don't have any recent hardware or the time to maintain/test this myself at the moment.

Upstream fixed this in the meantime.

Never mind, apparently I can accept it myself and this is good enough to allow me to close it.

@wblock This has been committed quite some time ago, but as @hrs requested changes, I can't close it (this would only have happened if the svn revision mentioned the review). As it was committed, I would prefer not to abandon it. Any ideas how to solve this?

Update to 0.9.5, including missing files and fixing pending upstream.
Use PORTVERSION in dependencies (as all parts of buildbot need
to get updated at the same time.

As the patch gets quite complicated and I would like to reference this review in the commit, I'll take over the revision and update the diff.

@rodrigc This commit breaks most of the unit tests:

In D10162#210112, @mat wrote:

You missed the third step which tells you to do "svn move" (or "svn copy", but here it is svn move.)

As it is too late, because buildbot-slave is gone, it is going to be a bit more complicated, a bit of a mix from the copy and the resurection. What you're going to need to do is:

• copy the current buildbot-worker directory somewhere
• svn rm buildbot-worker
• svn commit (this will break INDEX and ports that have a dependency on it, but you're fixing it in the next commit, so, it's "ok")
• svn cp 'svn+ssh://repo.freebsd.org/ports/head/devel/buildbot-slave/@437058' buildbot-worker
• pull back the changes from buildbot-slave to buildbot-worker.
• svn commit (this will unbreak INDEX and all)

In D10162#210106, @mat wrote:

Before any work on buildbot-worker can get in the tree, it needs to be removed and added back properly.

Thanks for opening this, much appreciated. I started working on this in parallel and there are a few more changes to it (running unit tests showed more dependencies that are missing - maybe only for the test target, but unclear at this point). Once I figured out all the details I'll commit the updated versions, until then it's probably best if you abandon this review.

@avg Unfortunately I don't have much time at my hands right now and - like you pointed out - this has been committed quite a while ago. So I think it's best if you open a PR and create a patch/new code review. If time permits, I'm more than happy to help you testing the improved code.

Obviously, thanks.