Hi,
On 7/26/06, jayakumar.acpi@xxxxxxxxx <jayakumar.acpi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ err = input_register_device(input_dev);
+ if (err) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "atlas: couldn't register input device\n");
+ input_free_device(input_dev);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ /* hookup button handler */
+ status = acpi_install_address_space_handler(device->handle,
+ 0x81, &acpi_atlas_button_handler,
+ &acpi_atlas_button_setup, device);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "Atlas: Error installing addr spc handler\n");
+ input_unregister_device(input_dev);
+ }
+
+ return status;
This is not a complaint about the driver but more a generic question -
how valid is it to mix error values from 2 different sets? I mean
input_register_device signals standard -EXXXX while
acpi_install_address_space_handler signals ACPI-specific error codes,
so result is some kind of monster error ;) ACPI' acpi_op_add defines
return value siimply as int which leads me to believe that -EXXXX is
more suitable here.
Overall it is unfortunate that ACPI has its own set of errors and that
they "seep" through to upper layers.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
