On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:30:01 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > I'm only half please with this. You change the function named, but it > > doesn't follow the calling convention of acpi_dock_match(), which is a > > little confusing. > > > > Anyway, I will need an ack from the ACPI people before I can pick this > > patch. Or maybe they should even push it upstream themselves. > > I am confused. Looking at that bunch of ifs, acpi_is_video_device returns 1 > for a match and 0 for no match. acpi_bay_match returns 0 for a match and > -ENODEV for no match, which just happens to work with the ACPI_SUCCESS macro. > acpi_dock_match returns ACPI error codes. Each of the three existing tests has > different return value semantics, so it is not clear to me which one I should > use. Ah, sorry, I looked at one (don't remember which one) and assumed the other ones followed the same convention. > I didn't think it was correct for my probe function to use the ACPI_STATUS > macro unless it returned ACPI error codes... which it does not. -ENODEV seemed > appropriate for "no device found". > > Is it desirable to clean them all up to follow the same convention? Ideally, yes, but that would be a separate task from what you're up to at the moment. And anyway this is not in my realm an I am not going to work on it myself, so my opinion probably doesn't matter that much. Sorry for bothering you with this in the first place. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
