Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: dmi_scan: Introduce the dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:02:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -1015,6 +1015,17 @@ bool dmi_get_date(int field, int *yearp, int *monthp, int *dayp)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date);
>  
> +int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
> +{
> +	bool exists;
> +	int year;
> +
> +	exists = dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
> +
> +	return exists ? year : -ENODATA;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_bios_year);

It would be good if kerneldoc was added to this function.  One thing
to mention is that direct usage of the function in a conditional only
works reliably when asserting an exact or minimum BIOS date.  It doesn't
work reliably when asserting a maximum BIOS date unless the return
value is explicitly checked for -ENODATA.  (Fortunately that use case
seems to be rare, but still worth mentioning IMHO.)


> +static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void) { return -ENXIO; }

Shouldn't this be -ENODATA as well for consistency?  Otherwise one would
have to check for -ENODATA *and* -ENXIO.

Thanks,

Lukas
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux