linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] surface pro 3: Add support driver for Surface Pro 3 buttons

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2015 01:27:58 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:	dvhart@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	mchehab@....samsung.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	jslaby@...e.com, rui.zhang@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	mika.westerberg@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] surface pro 3: Add support driver for Surface Pro
 3 buttons

On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 15:57 +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Since Surface Pro 3 does not follow the specs of "Windows ACPI Design
> Guide for SoC Platform", code in drivers/input/misc/soc_array.c can
> not detect these buttons on it.

The comments below are all just style trivia
and can be ignored entirely.

> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/surfacepro3_button.c b/drivers/platform/x86/surfacepro3_button.c
[]
> +#define handle_surface_button_notify(type, code)		\
> +({								\
> +	int ret = 0;						\
> +	if (SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_PRESS_##type == event)	\
> +		pressed = true;					\
> +	if (pressed ||						\
> +		 (SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_RELEASE_##type == event)) {	\
> +		key_code = code;				\
> +		ret = 1;					\
> +	} else							\
> +		ret = 0;					\
> +	ret;							\
> +})

This seems a bit complicated.

The else ret = 0 isn't necessary as it's initialized to 0.
bool might be better than int.

> +static void surface_button_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> +{
> +	struct surface_button *button = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +	struct input_dev *input;
> +	int key_code = KEY_RESERVED;
> +	bool pressed = false;
> +
> +	if (!handle_surface_button_notify(POWER, KEY_POWER) &&
> +		!handle_surface_button_notify(HOME, KEY_LEFTMETA) &&
> +		!handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_UP, KEY_VOLUMEUP) &&
> +		!handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_DOWN, KEY_VOLUMEDOWN))
> +		dev_info_ratelimited(&device->dev,
> +			"Unsupported event [0x%x]\n", event);

Some might prefer alignment to the open parenthesis:

	if (!handle_surface_button_notify(POWER, KEY_POWER) &&
	    !handle_surface_button_notify(HOME, KEY_LEFTMETA) &&
	    !handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_UP, KEY_VOLUMEUP) &&
	    !handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_DOWN, KEY_VOLUMEDOWN))

I think the older switch/case was easier to understand.

--
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/