On 01/15/2014 10:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:42:31PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/battery.c b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
index fbf1ace..e98fa83 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/battery.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
@@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_device *device)
device->driver_data = battery;
mutex_init(&battery->lock);
mutex_init(&battery->sysfs_lock);
- if (acpi_has_method(battery->device->handle, "_BIX"))
+ if (acpi_evaluate_object(device->handle, "_BIX", NULL, &buffer);)
set_bit(ACPI_BATTERY_XINFO_PRESENT, &battery->flags);
Doesn't acpi_evaluate_object() return 0 on success? I think:
if (ACPI_SUCESS(acpi_evaluate_object(device->handle, "_BIX", NULL,
&buffer))
Yes, Sorry for oops.
But maybe we should check for existence first and give an FW_BUG message
to indicate an invalid _BIX?
Yes, this is a good idea.
Another point, the acpi_evaluate_object should return different error
code for these two cases(no _BIX and wrong size.). I wonder whether we
can use the error code to determine it belong which case?
--
Best Regards
Tianyu Lan
--
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
