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-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
