On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ??????????: > > That just means the ACPI sysfs conversion on that area was not as good as it > > should have been. It is hardly the only place where the sysfs ABI is not > > well implemented, but that doesn't mean the breakage should remain, or that > > it should be made worse. > > What is the technical case to returning invalid values for something that is > > not supported when you could return a proper error on open() instead (since > Power Class interface does not give me control over open() as far as I know. Hmm, you're correct. We can return errors, but they'll be on read()/write(), not open(). > > you're not going to do the Right Thing and not register that attribute it in > > the first place)? Not only the "-1" way wastes more system resources (all > > clients have to do open+read+close), it also needs userspace to special case > > something, and that is always a Bad Idea for *many* reasons. > If you know how this could be done, please show the patch... Let me look at that code, and I will get back to you. Might have to use the recently introduced sysfs helpers or some somewhat ugly crap I had to add to thinkpad-acpi to do just that, though. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
