On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> > > The wrong test was used acpi_status status is unsigned. > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff -puN drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c~fujitsu-laptop-fix-tests-of-acpi_evaluate_integer-return drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c~fujitsu-laptop-fix-tests-of-acpi_evaluate_integer-return > +++ a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static int get_lcd_level(void) > > status = > acpi_evaluate_integer(fujitsu->acpi_handle, "GBLL", NULL, &state); > - if (status < 0) > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > return status; as status is a positive number, shouldn't we be returning something like -1 here on failure, rather than status? > > fujitsu->brightness_level = state & 0x0fffffff; > @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ static int get_max_brightness(void) > > status = > acpi_evaluate_integer(fujitsu->acpi_handle, "RBLL", NULL, &state); > - if (status < 0) > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > return status; > > fujitsu->max_brightness = state; > _ > -- 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
