On Saturday 14 June 2008 04:31:54 am Rene Herman wrote:
> On 05-06-08 00:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> > ISAPNP, PNPBIOS, and ACPI describe the "possible resource settings" of
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Acked-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Only minor comment:
>
> > +static inline unsigned int pnp_independent_option(void)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> I think this is a somewhat unintuitive name (the function doesn't return
> an option) and now that the pnp_dependent_option() one has been renamed
> to pnp_new_dependent_set() even the symmetry doesn't survive.
>
> pnp_independent_option_flags? pnp_independent_flags? Or better yet, just
> literal 0? That last one unless you have some as of yet unpublished plan
> for the abstraction ofcourse but this function seems to obscure more
> than it helps any at the moment.
Yep, you're absolutely right. I changed the dependent name at the
last minute and should have done something with independent at the
same time. I like the literal 0 idea.
> Only trivial:
>
> > +static int pnp_assign_resources(struct pnp_dev *dev, int set)
> > {
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > -fail:
> > - pnp_clean_resource_table(dev);
> > mutex_unlock(&pnp_res_mutex);
> > - dbg_pnp_show_resources(dev, "after pnp_assign_resources (failed)");
> > - return 0;
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "pnp_assign_resources failed (%d)\n", ret);
> > + pnp_clean_resource_table(dev);
> > + } else
> > + dbg_pnp_show_resources(dev, "pnp_assign_resources succeeded");
> > + return ret;
> > }
>
> if (ret < 0) would agree with the rest.
>
> > int pnp_auto_config_dev(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> > {
> > - struct pnp_option *dep;
> > - int i = 1;
> > + int i, ret = 0;
>
> int ret; will do;
Thanks, I'll fold those in, too.
Bjorn
--
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
