[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091027173001.GT26149@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:30:01 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: Crane Cai <crane.cai@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] acpi: support IBM SMBus CMI devices
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> I'm only half please with this. You change the function named, but it
> doesn't follow the calling convention of acpi_dock_match(), which is a
> little confusing.
>
> Anyway, I will need an ack from the ACPI people before I can pick this
> patch. Or maybe they should even push it upstream themselves.
I am confused. Looking at that bunch of ifs, acpi_is_video_device returns 1
for a match and 0 for no match. acpi_bay_match returns 0 for a match and
-ENODEV for no match, which just happens to work with the ACPI_SUCCESS macro.
acpi_dock_match returns ACPI error codes. Each of the three existing tests has
different return value semantics, so it is not clear to me which one I should
use.
I didn't think it was correct for my probe function to use the ACPI_STATUS
macro unless it returned ACPI error codes... which it does not. -ENODEV seemed
appropriate for "no device found".
Is it desirable to clean them all up to follow the same convention?
--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists