Hi, Greg
I think I may misunderstand what you mean here, let me confirm again.
Sorry for doing this.
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_UART
> > > +int acpi_uart_get_peripheral_type(struct device *dev,
> > > + char *buf, size_t size);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline int acpi_uart_get_peripheral_type(struct device *dev,
> > > + char *buf, size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > I see you never tested this code without the configuration option enabled :(
I was thinking you were talking about test plans.
Since I didn't see any issues here and I just didn't want to argue on this topic and replied in this way. :-)
The only user - uart_get_attr_peripheral_type with "int" return value check can ensure no issues here.
> > > +static ssize_t uart_get_attr_peripheral_type(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) {
> > > + int len;
> > > +
> > > + len = acpi_uart_get_peripheral_type(dev, buf, 1024);
> > > + if (len > 0) {
> > > + buf[len++] = '\n';
> > > + return len;
> > > + }
> > > + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "uart\n");
Now I realize that you might be talking about the "-NODEV" return value is not a good choice, "0" or something else is better.
Shall I return 0 here?
Thanks and best regards
-Lv
--
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
