[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150118180821.GB56582@vmdeb7>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:08:21 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>
Cc: mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pali.rohar@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
A.Sloman@...bham.ac.uk, computersforpeace@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dell-laptop: use dedicated sysfs file for ALS
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I decided to remove "als" from input_triggers and created a dedicated
> sysfs file for it. Having it there was wrong and misleading.
> I also updated the documentation to reflect this change and fixed the
> wrong description of als_setting, now used for als_enabled.
Given this is a significant functional change, as opposed to a bug fix, I'm
leaning toward reverting the original and adding back the corrected version to
3.20. I'm going to look at the total impact first - let me know if you have a
strong argument one way or the other.
>
> Is returning -ENODEV only when writing to als_enabled the right thing
> to do or should it be returned also when reading als_enabled?
Why would the als_enabled file exist if it would return ENODEV? If it shouldn't,
then returning ENODEV in both cases would be the right thing to do as there is
an error present.
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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